ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Palestinian Territories

John Howell: How her Department monitors outcomes of its spending in the Palestinian territories.

Justine Greening: I would first like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) for all the work he did during his time in the Department, and also to welcome the new Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) who I know will continue in the footsteps of my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield.
	The Department for International Development provides assistance and support to poor and vulnerable Palestinians, as well as supporting state building and economic development. Our operational plan for the Occupied Palestinian Territories contains a results framework that is monitored quarterly.

John Howell: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	The Prime Minister has been clear that Palestinian incitement will not be tolerated. As many as 25 Palestinian Authority schools are named after Palestinian terrorists, including Dalal Mughrabi, who killed 37 Israeli citizens. Will the Secretary of State assure me that no British aid goes towards such schools or to support the glorification of terrorism?

Justine Greening: The Prime Minister and I have been very clear that the UK deplores incitement on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We monitor any allegations of incitement closely and raise instances with both the Palestinian and the Israeli authorities. Regarding the UK’s direct financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority, which provides civil service salaries, it goes only to approved individuals through a World Bank trust fund that has an independent audit.

Stephen Twigg: Palestinian refugees from Syria are suffering enormously—both those within Syria and those who have fled the country. What more can we do and what more can DFID do to ensure that the vital work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency has secure funding for the long term?

Justine Greening: I had the chance to meet the head of the UNRWA only last week with the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne), and we discussed the need to ensure that its funding is sustained. UNRWA does critical work, and in the context of the need to improve the international response to more protracted crises, we can learn a great deal from its work with Palestinian refugees.
	15 [902762].

Peter Bone: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be better if money was put into direct projects rather than through third-party organisations when we cannot really be sure of the outcome?

Justine Greening: I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend that the agencies and organisations with which we work are ones in respect of which we know we can achieve value for money and results on the ground. He knows that I am passionate about being an aid disciplinarian and making sure that we get value for money. Critically, though, we have to work with the organisations that are there. We have a multilateral aid review under way to make sure that improvements in value for money continue progressively over time.

Richard Burden: Surely the Secretary of State will be aware of the guidance on the Foreign Office website, which warns UK companies thinking of investing in the Occupied Palestinian Territories of the “legal and economic risks” if they engage in
	“financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements and other economic activities in Israeli settlements or benefitting Israeli settlements”
	because of the illegal nature of those settlements and their being an obstacle to peace. Does the right hon. Lady therefore agree that it is perfectly reasonable for both public and private institutions to pay due regard to that advice when they make their own investment and procurement decisions?

Justine Greening: They should do that; that is good Foreign Office advice. We have been very clear that we deplore illegal settlements, because they take us further away from a two-state solution and peace in that part of the world, when we need to be taking what could be final steps and final chances to reach a two-state solution.

Diane Abbott: We welcome the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) to his new Front-Bench position, and on this side we will claim the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) as our first scalp.
	Given the worsening situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, how does the Secretary of State justify the decreasing funding to organisations such as UNRWA?

Justine Greening: I do not recognise that statement. The United Kingdom has played a leading role in making sure that we get support to vulnerable Palestinians, not only in Gaza but on the west bank. For example, the Materials Monitoring Unit has helped to support the Gaza reconstruction mechanism. I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware of all that, and it would be helpful to have her support for it.

Gaza: Youth Unemployment

Simon Danczuk: What information her Department holds on the level of youth unemployment in Gaza; and if she will make a statement.

Desmond Swayne: Gaza has the highest unemployment in the world. The World Bank estimates that youth unemployment had reached 60% by the end of 2014. Extensive restrictions inhibit employment. The UK continues to promote economic development and private sector-led growth.

Simon Danczuk: Gaza still faces restrictions on access to 35% of its agricultural land and 85% of its fishable waters, and Gazans are rarely allowed to travel outside their territory. Until such restrictions are removed, DFID will continue to work with one hand tied behind its back. Does the Minister not agree that the real problem is the blockade of Gaza?

Desmond Swayne: As I said, the restrictions inhibit employment, but we will not give up. We have a programme for economic development, and it is making progress—slow and frustrating progress, but progress none the less.

David Winnick: Can we make it absolutely clear that supporting the Palestinian people has nothing whatever to do with anti-Semitism? I wanted to clarify that at the outset.
	Does the Minister not agree that the appalling situation in Gaza—and he has given us the figures—shows the need for the developed democracies to do far more? What hope can there be for the Palestinian people when they are faced with so little hope of obtaining jobs and having a decent life? Should we not be far more concerned with the Palestinian tragedy than we are?

Desmond Swayne: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We do everything that we can diplomatically to raise the sights of the world community, and we will continue to do so.

Bob Blackman: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the ill-considered, short-sighted campaign for boycotts and disinvestment is actually leading to more unemployment among the Palestinian people?

Desmond Swayne: The problem faced by Gaza is restrictions, and the extension of restriction by any means is a block to peace.

Start-up Businesses

Barry Sheerman: What steps she is taking to encourage the availability of low-cost credit for start-up businesses in developing countries.

Nick Hurd: May I place on record my personal respect for the work done by my predecessor and friend the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), not least his kick-starting of the Energy Africa campaign?
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, small and medium-sized enterprises will play a critical role in creating and sustaining much-needed jobs in poor countries. We have a range of programmes that focus on providing support and finance for microbusinesses, SMEs and, I am delighted to say, social enterprises.

Barry Sheerman: I know the Minister to be an innovator —he has that reputation—but will be consider carefully one way in which the United Kingdom can help? The UK is now the leading financial technology and crowdfunding centre of the world, and crowdfunding can deliver real opportunities to, in particular, women in the developing world to control their lives, finance start-ups, and do well in life. Will the Minister talk to other people, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the aim of getting some real movement behind this?

Nick Hurd: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is a long-term, passionate supporter of the power of the crowd. If we get the regulation and the technology right, the arrangements will be very sustainable. The hon. Gentleman may not know this, but we have a manifesto commitment to develop crowdfunding, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are backing the Global Village Energy Partnership, which will be supporting 10 to 15 crowdfunding platforms in the energy sector in sub-Saharan Africa, and that is just the start.

Ranil Jayawardena: Does the Minister agree that businesses that support the conservation of endangered species should be promoted, and will he meet the all-party parliamentary group on endangered species to discuss that?

Nick Hurd: Yes.

Mr Speaker: I am deeply grateful.

Patrick Grady: My party also welcomes the new Minister to his post. He has said that he will ensure that small local enterprises can flourish in developing countries, but what reassurances can he give us that funds intended for those purposes do not make their way into the hands of larger conglomerates or multinational companies when it comes to, for example, the building of schools or the provision of education?

Nick Hurd: What is important to us is the creation of jobs. Those jobs will be created by a range of companies, and we will work with them to create a better economic environment in the countries in which we work. However, we know that 90% of the jobs will come from the private sector, and we know that most of the sustainable jobs will come from small and medium-sized organisations. We therefore give those organisations priority in respect of a number of the programmes that we are developing.

Fiona Bruce: How will DFID’s work with women and girls drive economic development in poorer countries?

Nick Hurd: As my hon. Friend will know, that issue is enormously important to the Department and the Secretary of State. Inclusive growth and support for women and girls as part of economic development is a central pillar of our strategic framework for the future. We expect our support over the next seven years to help to mobilise finance for more than 200,000 SMEs, at least a quarter of which will be headed by women.

Mary Creagh: Small businesses in Rwanda and Burundi face credit costs of up to 20%. I know that DFID’s TradeMark East Africa project is trying to deal with that, but small businesses in Burundi now face an upsurge in ethnic violence, with foreign fighters coming in from Rwanda. May I urge the Minister, as he undertakes the bilateral aid review, to look again at our decision to leave Burundi in 2011 and to look carefully at the potential need to go back in there and have a presence on the ground?

Nick Hurd: I share the hon. Lady’s concern about the situation. We do not have a bilateral programme there, but we do a lot in terms of humanitarian support. I take on board fully her remark about the costs of capital to small organisations. I refer to my earlier answer: technology can help us to reduce such costs.

Burma

James Berry: What plans she has to provide support for economic development in Burma in response to the recent election result in that country.

Justine Greening: I congratulate the people of Burma on their historic elections, which were supported by British-funded trained observers. The elections are an important step towards greater democracy. The UK will support inclusive growth in Burma. We will support improvements to the business climate, including the financial sector. We will help to increase agricultural productivity, diversify livelihoods and encourage more private sector investment in infrastructure.

James Berry: In the wake of Aung San Suu Kyi’s amazing victory, will my right hon. Friend expand on what her Department is doing to increase the participation of women in Burma’s economy, which has been dominated for far too long by men and the military?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Women face specific barriers to participation in Burma’s predominantly rural economy, and in access to finance, land skills and credit, so we are targeting those issues through programmes that have helped, for example, to provide affordable credit for over 140,000 women. We are also looking at how we can help women to move into other sectors, such as garments manufacture, where often conditions and pay are better.

Gregory Campbell: In assisting the Burmese nation and the new regime with international development, will the Secretary of State ensure that that regime is aware of the ongoing persecution of minorities in Burma, which needs to be dealt with as the new nation state takes shape?

Justine Greening: We will of course raise those issues. We know from so many other parts of the world that the Governments that are successful are the inclusive
	Governments with respect to minorities. One of the pieces of work that will be under way will be to double our support for a governance project that is taking place in the Burmese Parliament. That has seen our House of Commons Clerk go there in recent years. We will be doubling the number of Clerks there to help to ensure that the Burmese democracy can flourish, as ours has.

Gaza: Water and Sanitation

Alex Cunningham: What assessment she has made of the quality and availability of water and sanitation facilities in Gaza.

Desmond Swayne: That is completely inadequate. Demand exceeds supply by a factor of four, and 96% of the extracted water fails World Health Organisation safety standards.

Alex Cunningham: It is a terrible situation. Twenty-six per cent. of all diseases in Gaza ranging from respiratory and gastric to skin and eye diseases are directly associated with the poor water supply. Clean water is limited to 70 litres per person a day and that figure will fall drastically over the coming years. According to the UN, the underground coastal aquifer will become unusable by 2016. What can be done about that, or is it just a case of lifting the Israeli blockade and getting on with life?

Desmond Swayne: We are currently spending some €600,000 on a project to assist with desalination. Funds are available through our climate change fund for a long-term solution to this problem, but the level of investment and the marshalling of the factors of production will require a long-term peace process to be viable.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) speaks about the blockade, but surely if they did not embrace Hamas and continually fire rockets into Israel, there would not need to be a blockade in the first place.

Desmond Swayne: We work continually with both sides to ease the economic conditions and to bring about a settlement.

Mr Speaker: Natalie McGarry? Not here.

Yemen

Stephen Phillips: What steps her Department is taking to tackle the humanitarian situation in Yemen.

Desmond Swayne: This is one of the world’s worst human crises: 80% of Yemen’s 21 million people are in need of aid. The UK is playing its part. We have committed £75 million and are the fourth largest donor.

Stephen Phillips: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he update the House on what role the UK Government are playing to help bring about a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Yemen?

Desmond Swayne: Peace talks began today, and yesterday a ceasefire commenced. I would urge all parties to observe the ceasefire. Her Majesty’s ambassador and DFID are in the margins of the peace conference affording what assistance they can.

Keith Vaz: I welcome all the efforts that have been made by the Government, including the ceasefire, but the real problem is getting aid into Yemen. What can we do to raise the blockade?

Desmond Swayne: We have invested £1.7 million in the UN vessel investigation mechanism. I hope that that will have a quantum effect on the number of vessels that are able to dock in the ports—60 last month, 55 the month before. It is getting better, but we are far, far short of what is necessary.

David Jones: My right hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of the recent report by Save the Children which highlighted the devastating impact of the conflict on medical facilities in Yemen, with some 69 hospitals destroyed or damaged by the end of October. While one wishes the peace talks well, what can the Government do in the interim to ensure the combatants are dissuaded from targeting medical facilities?

Desmond Swayne: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That report is being scrutinised and investigated. We call on all combatants to observe international law, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made this point very forcefully on his recent visit.

Tom Brake: Following that reply, does the Minister agree that there is an overwhelming case for the United Nations Human Rights Council, which in the last year has referenced international humanitarian law 17 times to call for an investigation into breaches of international humanitarian law in Yemen?

Desmond Swayne: We supported the UN Human Rights Council resolution.

Mike Kane: The conflict in Yemen has seen 6,000 dead and 30,000 injured. The World Health Organisation says health services are on the brink of collapse. As it was world universal health coverage day yesterday, will the Minister today commit to help rebuild Yemen’s crippled system?

Desmond Swayne: We have already committed £75 million to this, the worst crisis in the world, and I do give that commitment. We are already planning for the reconstruction of Yemen.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: What discussions has the Minister had with the Foreign Office about concerning reports from Amnesty International and others that British-made weapons sold to Saudi Arabia are being used in the conflict, in breach of human rights laws?

Desmond Swayne: The UK has the toughest standards for the export of weapons. The hon. Lady should be aware that the coalition is acting in support of the legitimate Government of Yemen after an illegal coup by an armed—[Interruption]—force.

Mr Speaker: For a moment I thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to be inaudible, which is pretty rare.

Topical Questions

Stephen Hepburn: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Justine Greening: Since the last session of DFID questions, the House will welcome the news that Sierra Leone’s Ebola outbreak is officially over, and my thanks go to all those across Government, our armed forces and British non-governmental organisations who helped save an estimated 56,000 lives. In terms of my written ministerial statement in 2012, we are on track to end our traditional aid programme to India by the end of this year, shifting to a relationship based on technical assistance and investment, and finally last month I became the first Development Minister ever to chair a meeting of the United Nations Security Council in New York, discussing the crisis in Syria and the importance of development to delivering peace and security.

Stephen Hepburn: Britain has a lot to be proud of in its international development spending, but does the Minister agree that some brutal states continue to undermine the UK’s good efforts in the third world? With this in mind, does she agree that Qatar should be stripped of the World cup because the number of migrant workers slaughtered there in the run-up to the World cup will be greater than the number of professional footballers playing there?

Justine Greening: I am sure that the people running FIFA will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point very clearly. He will be aware that some of the work we do in DFID involves improving workers’ conditions, not least in places such as Bangladesh.

Mr Speaker: I call Kevin Foster. Get in there, Mr Foster—your moment has arrived!

Kevin Foster: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given the vital importance of a rebuilding process for Syria after the conflict, what discussions is my right hon. Friend’s Department having with our international partners and what financial commitments have been made to develop a long-term plan for that process?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend will be aware that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has signalled, the UK has pledged to commit at least £1 billion to Syria’s reconstruction. We are already updating our existing planning for reconstruction, working with donors, United Nations agencies and the World Bank. The expertise of the UN, international financial institutions and the private sector will be essential. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There is a lot of noise—probably animated discussions about Christmas shopping and the like—but we must hear the questions and the answers.

Diane Abbott: On the question of Syria, how many Syrian refugees will the Government have resettled in this country by Christmas?

Justine Greening: The Prime Minister will be giving an update on that shortly, but I think we can be proud of the role that the United Kingdom has played in leading the humanitarian response to the Syrian crisis, and of all the support we have provided, right from day one, to the refugees affected by the crisis.

Michael Tomlinson: What steps can the Secretary of State take to assist Syrians displaced in neighbouring countries such as Jordan, especially over the coming winter months?

Justine Greening: In this financial year, we have provided nearly £13 million to 11 partners who are helping to prepare for and respond to the onset of winter across Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. That is going to help to provide warm clothing, blankets, fuel and cash to vulnerable families.

Karin Smyth: Two million Syrian children live in areas that are beyond the area of humanitarian assistance. In the light of the recent strikes, what action is the Secretary of State taking to try to reach those desperate children?

Justine Greening: We are constantly working with United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations to try to improve our access within Syria. We estimate that there are probably around 500,000 people, including children, that we cannot reach, but we will do our level best to ensure that we maintain our existing network and to reach into those areas as the fighting stops.

James Morris: Does the Secretary of State agree that her Department has a vital role to play in delivering on the UK Government’s commitments that were signed at the climate change conference in Paris last week?

Justine Greening: Absolutely. In fact, DFID is scaling up our renewable energy work in Africa. We are expanding the provision of climate risk insurance in vulnerable countries, and we are also supporting increased investment in low-carbon technology and clean energy research.

Jo Cox: Given the increasing loss of life in Syria, Iraq and the Central African Republic and the escalating situation in Burundi, does the Secretary of State agree that the Government would benefit from applying a mass atrocity prevention lens in order to better focus their policy?

Justine Greening: The hon. Lady might be aware that, in our recently published aid strategy, we committed to investing around 50% of our DFID investment in so-called fragile and conflict states, precisely because we need to recognise that this is not just a matter of dealing with conflict after it has happened, and that we need to work to prevent it and to deal with fragility prior to issues taking place and causing huge distress.

Byron Davies: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how much her Department has spent in the past two years on humanitarian assistance in Syria and in the neighbouring countries that are receiving Syrian refugees?

Justine Greening: Over the course of the entire conflict, we have provided around £1.1 billion. That is our biggest-ever response to a humanitarian crisis. About half of that has been provided inside Syria, and around half has been used to support people in the region. There are now 4.4 million refugees outside Syria. It is vital that this work should continue, and we will continue to lead it.

Roger Mullin: Following the report produced by the University of Sussex for the Department, what does the Minister consider to be the main risks posed to most favoured nation low-income countries from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership?

Justine Greening: Not only is our aid policy helping to improve the prospects and the lives of millions of people in poverty around the world, but it is in our national interest. I have just talked about how what we are doing is important for UK security and international security, but it is also important in terms of prosperity. The international rules that the hon. Gentleman talks about can be a key way in which to enable prosperity through allowing freer trade, which can help developing countries to trade their way out of aid dependence.

Pauline Latham: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what DFID is doing to stop the problem with malaria in the north of Uganda, which I am going to visit over the new year? I know that DFID is working hard there, but will she tell the House specifically what it is doing?

Justine Greening: We have a range of programmes, including in Uganda, that have helped with the cheap intervention of providing bed nets. We have seen over the past 15 years that the number of deaths from malaria has fallen by two thirds, which is important because some countries spend 40% of their health budget purely on responding to malaria.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, Deidre Brock.

Deidre Brock: Is the Secretary of State aware of the recent arrest in Malawi of two men for having consensual sex? Will the Government make urgent representations to the Malawian Government, echoing the calls of the US ambassador, calling on them to live up to their international human rights obligations and ensure that these charges are dropped?

Justine Greening: We will be making representations, and the hon. Lady is absolutely right to flag that up as a key area of human rights that needs to be addressed, wherever it takes place.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Richard Graham: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 December.

David Cameron: I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing Major Tim Peake well as he begins his six-month stay at the international space station. We all watched his exciting take-off yesterday and as he is the first Briton to visit the international space station, it signals a landmark in this country’s involvement in space exploration. I am proud that the Government took the decision to fund it, and we wish him the best of luck.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Richard Graham: May I welcome today’s fall in unemployment to 5.2%, which is the lowest level in almost 10 years?
	Stalking is a horrible crime. Dr Eleanor Aston, a GP in Gloucester and resident of Cheltenham, was harassed for several years by a stalker who slashed her tyres, hacked her water pipe, cut off her gas supply and put foul items in her letterbox. She and her family suffered dreadfully. The judge, in sentencing, said that if he could have given more than the maximum five years, he certainly would have done. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) has raised the issue of sentencing guidelines with the Justice Secretary. Will the Prime Minister today give his support for greater flexibility and longer sentencing where it is clear that a stalker is a real menace?

David Cameron: First, let me say how much I agree with my hon. Friend that stalking is a dreadful crime. That is why we have introduced two new stalking offences during this Parliament. I will certainly make sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham has his meeting with my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary. I cannot comment on the individual case without looking at it in more detail, but we are taking the action necessary and we will continue to do so.
	On unemployment, I am sure that the whole House will want to welcome the fact that there are half a million more people in work in our country in the last year alone. We have had wages growing above inflation every month for a year and the claimant count is at its lowest level since 1975. I am sure that will have a welcome right across the House.

Jeremy Corbyn: May I start, Mr Speaker, by wishing you, all Members of the House and all staff here, and Major Tim Peake, who is not on the planet at this time, a very happy Christmas and a peaceful new year?
	The number of days that patients are being kept in hospital because there is nowhere safe to discharge them to has doubled since the Prime Minister took office. On 4 November, I asked him if he could guarantee that there will be no winter crisis in the NHS this winter. He did not answer then, so I wonder whether he will be able to help us with an answer today.

David Cameron: First, let me join the right hon. Gentleman and be clear that I do not want to wish him the season’s greetings; I want a full happy Christmas for him and everyone in the House. He specifically asked about the NHS, so let me give him a specific answer. The average stay in hospital has actually fallen since I became Prime Minister from five and a half days to five days. One reason for that is that we kept our promises on the NHS. We put in an extra £12 billion in the last Parliament, and will be putting in £19 billion in cash terms in this Parliament.

Jeremy Corbyn: For the record, I did say happy Christmas. Perhaps the Prime Minister was not listening at the time. If he is so happy about the national health service, will he explain why he has decided to cancel the publication of NHS performance data this winter? There was a time, not that long ago, when the Prime Minister was all in favour of transparency. It was in 2011 when he said:
	“Information is power. It lets people hold the powerful to account, giving them the tools they need to take on politicians and bureaucrats.”
	Is it because the number of people being kept waiting on trolleys in A&E has gone up more than fourfold that he does not want to publish those statistics?

David Cameron: First, the data that the right hon. Gentleman quoted in his first question were not published before this Government came into office. Let me quote some data about the NHS: on an average day, there are 4,400 more operations and 21,000 more outpatient appointments than there were five years ago when I became Prime Minister. Yes, there are challenges in A&E, but there are 2,100 more people being seen within four hours than there were five years ago, and there are more data published on our NHS than there ever were under Labour.

Jeremy Corbyn: There are huge pressures on the NHS, and they are largely due to the pressures on the adult social care system, which is under enormous stress at the moment. Indeed, there have been huge cuts in adult social care because of cuts in local government funding. The NHS chief executive, Simon Stevens, has called for a radical upgrade in prevention and public health. Does the Prime Minister agree that cutting these crucial services is a false economy?

David Cameron: We are increasing the money that councils can spend on social care through the 2% council tax precept. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Simon Stevens, but our NHS plan is Simon Stevens’s plan. For the first time, the NHS got together and wrote its plan. It asked for £8 billion, and it asked for the money up front. We committed to that plan, unlike Labour at the last election, and we funded it up front, which is why we see a bigger and better NHS. None of that would have been possible, including the action that we are taking on social care through the better care fund, without our having achieved a growing economy and an increase in jobs.

Jeremy Corbyn: The problem is to do with adult social care. This morning on BBC Radio 4, the NHS Confederation said that
	“cuts to social care and public health will continue to pile more pressure on hospitals and will worsen deficits in the acute sector.”
	What was announced on social care in the autumn statement falls well short of what is needed. The Health Foundation estimates that there will be a funding shortfall of £6 billion by 2020. How will the Government meet that shortfall?

David Cameron: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman listens to the “Today” programme. Perhaps he might even bother to go on it one of these days. A bit of transparency and sunlight would be very welcome. If he wants to swap quotations, this is what the chairman of the Local Government Association says:
	“The LGA has long called for further flexibility in the setting of council tax… Today’s announcement on council tax will go some way to allowing a number of councils to raise the money needed…The £1.5 billion increase in the Better Care Fund announced today is good news”.
	It is this Government who funded the NHS; Labour did not. It is this Government who set up the better care fund; Labour opposed it. It is this Government who have the strong and growing economy. I note that we are on question four and there is still no welcome for the unemployment figures.

Jeremy Corbyn: The issue of adult social care and cuts in local government spending is very much the responsibility of central Government. Will the Prime Minister confirm that NHS trusts are forecasting a deficit of £2.2 billion this year? I understand—and he, as part of the Oxford anti-austerity movement, will be concerned about this—that his own local healthcare trust is predicting a £1.7 million deficit. There is a problem of NHS funding. Has he forgotten the simple maxim that prevention is cheaper and better than cure?

David Cameron: How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly complain about NHS funding when his party did not commit to fund the Stevens plan? We are spending £19 billion more on the NHS—money that would not be available if we had listened to the Labour party. Now he says that social care is a responsibility of Government; everything is a responsibility of Government, but in fact, local councils decide how much to spend on social care, and with the better care fund, they have more to spend. But I challenge him again: how do we pay for the NHS? We pay for it by having more growth, more jobs, more people having a livelihood. Is he going to welcome that at Christmas time, or does he not care about the reduction in unemployment?

Jeremy Corbyn: I have a question from Abby, who wants to train to be a midwife, and she says:
	“I am 28 years old. This year I left my successful career to go back into university to re-train as a Midwife. I already have a debt of £25,000 from my first degree.
	Well over half of my cohort have studied a first degree in another subject and many of my fellow colleagues have children and partners and elderly parents and mortgages.
	Many people will be put off by the lack of financial support and massive debts.”
	In the spirit of Christmas, will the Prime Minister have a word with his friend the Chancellor, who is sitting next to him—it can be done very quickly—to reverse the cuts in the nurse bursary scheme, so that we do get people like Abby training to be midwives, which will help all of us in the future?

David Cameron: First of all, I want Abby to train as a midwife, and I can guarantee that the funding will be there for her training, because there are thousands more midwives operating in the NHS today than when I became Prime Minister. Now the right hon. Gentleman mentions the question of nurse bursaries. The truth is that two out of three people who want to become nurses cannot do so because of the constraints on the system, and our new system will mean many more doctors and many more nurses. Since I became Prime Minister, we have already got 10,000 more doctors in the NHS and 4,500 more nurses. But all of this is happening because the economy is growing, the deficit is falling, unemployment is coming down, you can fill up a tank of gas at £1 a litre and wages are going up. Britain is getting stronger as we go into Christmas, because our economy is getting stronger, too.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: Yesterday, colleagues from both sides of the House formed a new all-party group on the armed forces covenant, which aims to scrutinise and support the fulfilment of the Government’s pledges to service personnel and their families. Will the Prime Minister join me in praising the incredible dedication of our armed forces and their families, especially those in my constituency at RAF Boulmer, at this festive time, when many are separated from their loved ones? Will he reaffirm his personal commitment to the House to delivering his armed forces covenant in practice and in full?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for her question; she is absolutely right. As all of us get ready hopefully to spend time with our families this Christmas, there will be many in our brave armed services who cannot because they are serving abroad or at home, so we wish them the very best as Christmas comes. On the military covenant, one of the things of which I am proudest in the last five years is that we put that into law, adding to it every year by giving veterans priority in healthcare, increasing funding for veterans’ mental health services and prioritising school places for children. Every year we have made progress on the armed forces covenant, and every year I stand at this Dispatch Box we will continue to do so.

Angus Robertson: The Prime Minister will shortly meet the Heads of State and of Government of the European Union. Will he heed the advice of former Prime Minister John Major and stop “flirting” with leaving the European Union, which would, in his words, be
	“very dangerous and against our national interests”?

David Cameron: What I will be doing is getting the best deal for Britain. That is what we should be doing. This Government were the first to cut the EU budget, the first to veto a treaty, the first to bring back substantial powers to Britain. We have a great record on Europe and we will get a good deal for the British people.

Angus Robertson: We were reminded this week that there is a very strong majority in Scotland to remain within the European Union, and the Prime Minister has failed—[Interruption.] I know his side does not like to hear it, but the Prime Minister has failed to give any guarantees that Scotland will not be forced out of the EU by the rest of the UK. Does he have any idea of the consequences of taking Scotland out of the EU against the wishes of voters in Scotland?

David Cameron: This is a United Kingdom and this is a United Kingdom issue. Why is the right hon. Gentleman so frightened of listening to the people and holding this historic referendum, passed through both Houses of Parliament in the past week? I say get a good deal for Britain and then trust the people.

Karl McCartney: The Prime Minister has previously visited RAF Waddington in my constituency and I am sure he will, like me, wish all the service personnel and their families well as they carry out operations during the Christmas period. Given that the United Kingdom is now conducting airstrikes over Syria as well as over Iraq, and in the light of the Leytonstone attack, why is our country still not at the highest level of threat?

David Cameron: First, let me join my hon. Friend in praising those at RAF Waddington who work round the clock to keep us safe in our country and are doing such vital work. As he will know, the threat level in this country is set not by politicians but by the joint terrorism analysis centre, JTAC, which currently sets it at “severe”, the second highest level. I can confirm what I said to the House on 26 November: the UK is already in the top tier of countries that Daesh is targeting. I can also confirm that that part of my statement was cleared in advance by the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee. The threat level today is “severe”, which means that a terrorist attack is highly likely; that has been the case since August. The highest level is “critical”, which means that an attack is believed to be imminent. Were we to go to that level, it would be for JTAC to advise, not for Ministers.

Tulip Siddiq: I am proud to represent a constituency that boasts seven synagogues, four mosques, over 35 churches and two temples. However, last night Donald Trump reiterated that members of one of those communities would not be allowed into America simply because of their religion, seemingly unaware how divisive this is. In our country we have legislation that stops people entering the country who are deemed not to be conducive to the public good. Does the Prime Minister agree that the law should be applied equally to everyone, or should we make exceptions for billionaire politicians?

David Cameron: Let me join the hon. Lady in being proud of representing a country which I think has some claim to say that we are one of the most successful multiracial, multi-faith, multi-ethnic countries anywhere in the world. There is more to do to build opportunity and fight discrimination. I agree with her that it is right that we exclude people when they are going to radicalise or encourage extremism. I happen to disagree with her about Donald Trump. I think his remarks are divisive, stupid and wrong, and if he came to visit our country I think he would unite us all against him.

Mark Pawsey: By the time the House next meets for questions, many people will have started their new year’s resolutions. For many, one resolution will be to give up smoking. Given that Public Health England recently stated that e-cigarettes are 95% safer than tobacco and half the population is unaware of that fact, will the Prime Minister join me in highlighting the role that e-cigarettes can play in helping people give up tobacco for good?

David Cameron: Certainly, speaking as someone who has been through this battle a number of times, eventually relatively successfully, lots of people find different ways of doing it, and clearly for some people e-cigarettes are successful. We need to be guided by the experts, and we should look at the report from Public Health England, but it is promising that over 1 million people are estimated to have used e-cigarettes to help them quit or have replaced smoking with e-cigarettes completely. We should be making it clear that this a very legitimate path for many people to improve their health and therefore the health of the nation.

Callum McCaig: During the referendum the Prime Minister pledged to deliver carbon capture and storage at Peterhead, something he reiterated in the Tory party manifesto, yet on the eve of the Paris climate talks he pulled the plug. Which does he see as the greatest betrayal—that of Scotland, that of his manifesto, or that of the entire planet?

David Cameron: Of course the greatest success is the Paris climate change talks. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who was one of the key negotiators who helped to deliver this global goal, which is so much better than what happened at Copenhagen and better even than what happened at Kyoto.
	Let me answer the hon. Gentleman directly on carbon capture and storage. In government you have to make tough choices. You have to make decisions about technology that works and technology that is not working. We are spending the money on innovation, on energy storage, on small nuclear reactors, and on other things such as energy heat systems for local communities that will make a difference. To govern is to choose, and we made the right choice.

Nigel Adams: This Friday sadly sees the closure of Britain’s last deep coal mine at Kellingley in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in thanking the hundreds of workers who will be working their last shift this Friday, and praise the thousands of workers whose bravery and hard graft over the past 50 years has helped warm our homes, power our factories, and keep our lights on?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend speaks very strongly for his constituents. I am very happy to join him in thanking people who have worked so hard at that mine and elsewhere. Obviously it is a difficult time.
	As part of the closure process, the Government have put in nearly £18 million to ensure that the workers receive the same package as the miners at recently closed Thoresby. That finance has allowed the mine—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	It is all very well Opposition Members shouting, but may I just tell them something? This is the official policy of the Labour party:
	“We must take action…to keep fossil fuels in the ground”.
	That is their policy. They have also got a policy, by the way, of reopening coal mines, so presumably what they are going to do is dig a big hole in the ground and sit there and do nothing. What a metaphor for the right hon. Gentleman’s leadership of his party!

Alison Thewliss: The Prime Minister promised during the election campaign that he would not restrict child benefits to two children. Since then, he has not only reneged on that but, as a result, brought in the rape clause for women in order for women to receive child benefits. Since July, I have asked a number of his Ministers a number of times, and nobody has been able to tell me how this will work. Will he now drop the two-child policy and the rape clause?

David Cameron: First of all, we have made it absolutely clear, and let me make it clear again, that there is no question of someone who is raped and has a child losing their child tax credits or their child benefit—no question at all. But is it right for future claimants on universal credit to get payments for their first two children? I think that it is.

Ranil Jayawardena: Is my right hon. Friend aware that thanks to the Chancellor’s protection of the police budget, 108 more police officers are being recruited to protect the people of Hampshire? While there is more to do in tackling crime in more rural areas, does he agree that this is an important step in prioritising the frontline, and that the Home Office and the Hampshire constabulary have made real progress in making our police more effective, more efficient, and more resilient?

David Cameron: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in saying that it was the right decision to make sure we have this extra funding for the police. By the end of the spending settlement, it is actually an increase of £900 million in cash terms by 2019-20. I am delighted that there will be more officers on the streets in Hampshire. I come back to the same point: you cannot fund the NHS, you cannot fund the Home Office, and you cannot fund the police unless you have a growing economy with more jobs, people paying their taxes, and making sure you have got a strong and stable economy, and that is what is happening in Britain today.

Gisela Stuart: In his farewell speech, the outgoing director of the British Museum said:
	“The British Museum is perhaps the noblest dream that parliament has ever dreamt. Parliament decided to make a place where the world could be under one roof, where the collection would be free to all native or foreign, where every citizen would have the right to information and where all inquiry would be outside political control.”
	Does the Prime Minister agree that the partnership working of the British Museum, such as that with the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery for its multi-faith gallery next year, is important, but that such work will not happen unless our museums and galleries continue to be funded properly?

David Cameron: Let me join the right hon. Lady in paying tribute not only to the British Museum, which is an absolute jewel in the British cultural crown, but to Neil MacGregor, who gave it such extraordinary leadership. Given her heritage, perhaps she will be amused by the fact that I took Chancellor Merkel to the museum to show her the brilliant exhibition about Germany—it was fantastic—but the next thing I knew, the Germans had poached Neil MacGregor to run their cultural institute in Germany. None the less, in the spirit of European co-operation, which is going to be vital this week, I am happy to see that happen. I want to see the British Museum complete all its partnerships, not just across the United Kingdom but internationally. The right hon. Lady will have seen in the autumn statement that the British Museum got a funding settlement with which it was, rightly, very pleased.

Fiona Bruce: According to Oxfam, the UK has donated a generous 229% of its fair share of aid in support of Syrian refugees —the highest percentage of the G8—yet worldwide only 44% of what is needed by those refugees has been donated. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is critical that other countries step up to the plate, as the UK has more than done, and will he update the House on progress in support of Syrian refugees?

David Cameron: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Britain is doing its moral duty in terms of funding the refugees and the refugee camps. We are going to hold a conference in February, bringing the world together to make sure there is more funding in future. That is going to be absolutely vital. In terms of the number of refugees that we have resettled, I made a promise that we would resettle 1,000 by Christmas and I can confirm today that we have met that commitment. The charter flights that arrived yesterday at Stansted and Belfast mean that over 1,000 have been settled. Another charter flight is coming today. The Government have provided funding so that all those refugees get housing, healthcare and education.
	I thank all the local authorities and all those who have worked so hard, including the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), who has led the process so ably. I said that Britain would do its duty, and with those 1,000 we have made a very good start.

Douglas Carswell: Three years ago, the Prime Minister could not have been any clearer: his EU renegotiation would mean returning control over social and employment law. Is he still seeking that?

David Cameron: I always find it hard to satisfy the hon. Gentleman: he joined the Conservative party when we were not committed to a referendum and he left the Conservative party after we committed to a referendum, so I am not surprised that he is giving his new boss as much trouble as he used to give me. With that, I wish them both a very festive Christmas.

Oliver Dowden: The triumphant “Star Wars” saga began life at Elstree studios in my constituency, which continues to produce hits such as “The King’s Speech” and “Suffragette”—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is banging on very eloquently about “Star Wars” and I want to hear him.

Oliver Dowden: Will the Prime Minister join me in pledging support for our thriving British film industry, which makes such a valuable social, cultural and economic contribution in Hertsmere and across the United Kingdom?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend raises an important point. This film is not only very exciting for children—I have to say that quite a lot of parents are looking forward to it, too—but it was made in Britain, with many British actors and some brilliant British technicians, showing the strength of the British film industry. I would say this, but it is also backed by the British Government and British taxpayers with the excellent resources we provide. As I have worked with my hon. Friend for so many years and in so many different ways, I know that he will never join the dark side.

Marion Fellows: Despite the ongoing efforts of the Scottish steel taskforce, my constituents at the Dalzell steel plant and the neighbouring Clydebridge works are starting to receive redundancy notices. Given the urgency of the situation, will the Prime Minister put pressure on the EU now to reach a quicker decision on permitting the energy intensive industries compensation scheme? If such permission is granted, will he also commit to implementing the scheme as soon as possible to provide a much needed breathing space for our steel sector and to give some hope to my constituents this Christmas?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this. We are working as hard as we can in Europe to try to get the energy intensive industries plan cleared. I can confirm to her that as soon as it is cleared, the money will be available for British steelmaking companies. We expect this to be in place no later than April 2017, but it should be much earlier than that, and we are working round the clock to try to get that done.

Nicola Blackwood: The tragic stabbing in Abingdon Poundland last week has shocked local residents. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in sending our condolences to the family of father of two Justin Skrebowski, who was killed in the attack, and to honour the bravery of those who overpowered the attacker with no thought of the risk to themselves. In the light of this attack, does the Prime Minister agree that it is now time for the Government and retailers to work together to make it more difficult for offenders to get hold of offensive weapons in the first place?

David Cameron: As my hon. Friend’s constituency neighbour, I was very shocked by what happened in Abingdon, and my heart goes out to the family of those who have suffered. She is right to ask the question about offensive weapons and how available they are, and I am very happy to look at that. Given that attack and the, although unrelated, Leytonstone attack, it is right to look at the resources that our police have in terms of their equipment—there is a very different usage pattern for Tasers, for instance, across the country—and this is something that the Home Secretary, the Metropolitan police and I are discussing.

Danny Kinahan: There is nothing I believe in more passionately than the Union. With Scottish nationalism, English votes for English laws, various powerhouses and city deals, and the creation of numerous other measures that may threaten the Union, what is the Prime Minister’s vision of that Union and holding the four countries together? Will he come to speak to the all-party group on the Union at some stage, and even more important, will he help with the campaign throughout the Union because we are better together?

David Cameron: Like the hon. Gentleman, I am passionate about our United Kingdom. I believe we can make it stronger by accepting that it is a partnership of nations, and a partnership of nations where we should treat each other with respect. [Interruption.] I do not want to listen to SNP Members: they do not want a partnership; they want a separation. Actually, one of the things that is so strong about the United Kingdom—I think other countries, frankly, are quite envious of this—is that we have demonstrated that you can have multiple identities: you can be proud of being an Ulsterman and a Brit; you can be proud of being a Hindu and a Scot; you can be proud of being both Welsh and British. We have solved one of the problems that the rest of the world is grappling with, and that is why we should keep our United Kingdom together.

Gerald Howarth: As we approach the festival—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There was some noticeably eccentric gesticulation taking place, Mr MacNeil, but you should desist. Calm yourself, man. Go and celebrate if you wish, but we must hear the hon. Gentleman—and he will be heard.

Gerald Howarth: As we approach the festival marking the birth of Jesus Christ, may I invite the Prime Minister to send a message of support to the millions of fellow Christians around the world who are suffering persecution? May I also invite him once again to remind the British people that we are a country fashioned by our Christian heritage and it is that heritage that has resulted in our giving refuge to so many of other faiths over so many centuries, but that we will not tolerate those who abuse our freedom to try to inflict their alien and violent fashions upon us, particularly in the name of Islam?

David Cameron: I join my hon. Friend in saying that we should do everything we can to defend and protect the right of Christians to practise their faith the world over. That is an important part of our foreign policy. Let me commend Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, for the excellent work he does in that regard.
	Yes, Britain is a Christian country. I believe that the fact that we have an established faith and that we understand the place of faith in our national life makes us a more tolerant nation and better able to accommodate other faith groups in our country. That is why, as I said earlier, we should be proud that this is one of the most successful multi-ethnic, multi-faith, multi-religion democracies anywhere in the world. That is not in conflict with our status as a predominantly Christian country; that status is one of the reasons why we have done it.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Sue Hayman.

Sue Hayman: I know that the Prime Minister is aware of the flooding that has taken place in my constituency and the damage to the town of Cockermouth. I had a call from a constituent this morning who said that insurance companies are refusing to help my constituents until they have paid the excess in full. Does he agree that that is absolutely outrageous? Some of the excesses are up to £10,000. What can be done to ensure that insurance companies fulfil their obligations to my constituents?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that matter. First, the Minister for Government Policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), has had meetings with the insurance companies to make sure that that sort of practice does not happen. Secondly, we have announced that we are putting money into the community funds that will form hardship funds that will potentially help people who do not have insurance. The third vital thing is the establishment of Flood Re, which will mean that, in future, all homes are able to get that insurance. That was a decision made by the last Government and we are putting it in place.

Hannah Bardell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: We will come to points of order, but we have an urgent question and a statement. Thereafter, I will be happy to entertain points of order from the hon. Lady and others.

Victims of Contaminated Blood: Support

Diana R. Johnson: (Urgent Question): To ask the Minister responsible for public health to make a statement on Government plans to reform the support for victims of contaminated blood.

Jane Ellison: I recognise that I committed in earlier debates to consulting on proposals to reform the current payment schemes before the end of the year. Despite our best efforts to meet that commitment, we are unfortunately not ready to publish the consultation before the recess. However, I confirm today that it will be published in January.
	The delay will, I know, be disappointing for many who were anticipating the consultation before the end of the year. I apologise for the delay, in particular to Members of the House who have been campaigning tirelessly for a resolution on behalf of their constituents and to those who are directly affected, who continue to wait patiently for our proposals.
	In the Westminster Hall debate in September, I explained that any consultation would happen within the context of the spending review and that payments for the reformed scheme would come from the Department of Health budget. The House will know that the outcome of the spending review was communicated to us only a few weeks ago.
	The infected blood tragedy and reform of the payment schemes remain a priority for us. We are assessing what can be allocated above and beyond the additional £25 million to which we have already committed. That, of course, is in addition to the existing baseline spend on the payment schemes, which will remain.
	Over my two years as public health Minister, I have heard regularly from those affected by this tragedy. Every week, I read a large number of letters, both to me and to the Prime Minister, from campaign groups, individuals and their families, all of whom have been affected by the tragedy in different ways. While considering our proposals for consultation, I want to ensure that all those views are reflected and that I do not miss the thoughts of those with the quieter voices.
	We are currently working towards publication of the consultation and, as part of that, we arranged an independently facilitated event with representatives of some of the leading campaign groups. The report from that event is available through those groups.
	I have worked to keep Members of the House updated—you know how seriously I take my duties in that regard, Mr Speaker—and last month I invited members of the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood to a meeting to discuss this issue. I told colleagues that my intention was to consult as soon as possible, but I said that that could be in January, given the timing of the comprehensive spending review.
	As discussed with the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, I am also interested in the opportunities offered by the advent of simpler and more effective treatments that are able to cure some people of hepatitis C, and which present a welcome new opportunity to make some people well. I assure the House that that work continues to establish a way forward, and a consultation will be published in January. At that time I will seek to make an oral statement.
	In conclusion, because my priority is to get this issue right, I have taken the decision to take a little more time and publish the consultation in January.

Diana R. Johnson: Mr Speaker, your decision to grant this urgent question is recognition of the long campaign for justice for this group of people, and it is appreciated by everyone who has been involved. I am, however, disappointed that I have had to ask for an urgent question. On three occasions, Ministers promised a statement before Christmas, and they should not have been forced to come to the Chamber for the second time this year. When the Minister speaks about a consultation in January, I assume that she means January 2016. I would like clarification on that, because dates always seem to slip, and such action from the Government fuels distrust and resentment among people who have been let down for too long.
	I have four questions for the Minister. First, she proposes a consultation that will run for 12 weeks and that she will need to assess before launching a new scheme. Will she explain how that is feasible before the start of the next financial year? Secondly, she claimed that it will be the first full public consultation, but the APPG ran a full consultation—with the same consultees—earlier this year. Can she assure me that she has considered the APPG report and all the evidence presented in it? Thirdly, as she said, the Government delayed making a statement until after the comprehensive spending review, in order to determine the total “financial envelope” available. I understand that the Department of Health currently pays out about £14 million a year, with a total future financial commitment of £455 million. Will the Minister tell the House how much more is now available following the comprehensive spending review?
	Fourthly, lump-sum payments were a key issue raised in response to the APPG inquiry, but it now appears that those are off the agenda. That is a major disappointment because lump-sum payments would allow those affected to make real choices about their own lives—something they have been denied for far too long. Will the Minister support a separate request to the Treasury to use funds equivalent to the £230 million raised from the sale of Plasma Resources UK to fund lump-sum payments to those who have been affected?

Jane Ellison: I thank the hon. Lady for her response. Of course I understand the disappointment that we are not able to consult before the end of the year, but I informed her and her colleagues who came to the meeting on, I think, 5 November, that it was unlikely that we would be able to do so. That was recorded in the note made at the meeting, and published through the all-party group. I have tried to keep colleagues informed, and only last night I spoke to a number of campaigners about this issue, including the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), and informed them personally about the delay. I would, of course, have informed the hon. Lady today or tomorrow, along with the other Members who attended that meeting. I have done my best to keep people informed.
	I understand the hon. Lady’s point about the consultation. I will consider the issue she raises, but I have always been clear that the transition to a new scheme must be done in a way that does not compromise the safety of payments to people in schemes—again, we discussed that at the meeting in early November. I therefore see no problem with consulting and then moving towards a transition, because that transition will be a gradual process anyway for some people. I want to ensure a safe transfer from the current scheme to any reformed scheme, and I do not see a real problem in that regard.
	This will be the first full consultation by the Government, and the hon. Lady is right to say that the all-party group—and others, including my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)—garnered many views. All views, including those put to the all-party group in its very good report, can be reiterated as part of the response to the consultation.
	I made a statement on the issue of money in my response to the urgent question. I understand the point the hon. Lady makes on lump sum payments, but it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this time. I can talk about that more when I make an oral statement at the time we launch the consultation. She reiterated in her questions the principle of individual choice and treating people as individuals. Many Members have stressed to me the importance of that principle. We will very much recognise it in what we bring forward in the new year.

Jason McCartney: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), with whom I co-chaired the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood in the previous Parliament, on securing the urgent question. May I, too, press the Minister to please use the valuable data in the all-party group’s report? It has real testimony from the victims on how the trusts and funds—whether the Macfarlane Trust, the Skipton Fund, the Eileen Trust or the Caxton Fund—just are not delivering the day-to-day support the victims need. Will she come back to the House as soon as possible in January and not on the last day, so we do not have to secure another urgent question?

Jane Ellison: My hon. Friend, who has campaigned long and hard on this issue, is right to reiterate the importance of the views given in that report. I confirm that they have already informed our thinking about how we go forward, as indeed have the views of many colleagues on all sides of the House expressed over many months and years. I can assure him that the report will be considered. I have previously committed, and I reiterate the commitment today, to conducting a root and branch reform of the current schemes.

Andrew Gwynne: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I pay tribute to all the Members of this House who have been a strong voice for the victims of contaminated blood, but in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) who has been tireless in her pursuit of answers.
	This scandal saw thousands of people die and thousands of families destroyed through the negligence of public bodies. Over the years, the response of Governments of all colours just has not been good enough. It is a real shame that we are here yet again wondering why action has not been taken. I do not think anyone doubts the sincerity of the commitment that the Prime Minister made back in April, but does the Minister understand the disappointment that people have felt in recent months as promises to publish arrangements and to make statements have been broken repeatedly? Does she accept that that has only raised false hope among a community that already feels very betrayed?
	Given the further delay that the Minister has announced today, what guarantees do we have that the January consultation date will be met? What redress—other than an urgent question through you, Mr Speaker—will there be if it is not? A consultation is fine, but will she say when any new scheme will be implemented? It is important that any new arrangements are properly scrutinised, so will she commit to a debate in Government time to allow that to happen? Finally, does the public health Minister appreciate that the longer this goes on, the longer we leave in place a system that is not working and leaves victims without adequate support?
	No amount of money can ever fully make up for what happened, but we owe those still living with the consequences the dignity of a full, final, fair and lasting settlement. This injustice has gone on for far too long. The time for action is now.

Jane Ellison: As I have already said, I of course regret the delay. This is a very complex area. I appreciate the tone with which the shadow public health Minister responded, because, as he said, Governments of all colours have not turned to this issue. We have turned to the issue and we are addressing it in a great deal of detail. It is a complex area. There is a very diverse range of affected groups impacted by this tragedy and we must get the consultation on reform right for all of them. I have been clear, in my response to the urgent question, that we have been considering the funding issue. We are, of course, aware of potential litigation in relation to the scheme as it stands. I cannot comment further on that, but the House will appreciate that that adds a level of complexity to dealing with this matter.
	I am always extremely happy to come to the House to explain. The scheduling of debates in Government time is not a matter for me, but it goes without saying not only that I would be delighted to debate the matter but that I am happy to talk to colleagues, including shadow Front-Bench colleagues, privately or otherwise, about this matter. That commitment remains.

Chloe Smith: I echo the spirit of these exchanges; we need to do this job fast and well. May I highlight the tragic circumstances of some of those affected, including a constituent of mine who has sadly got more ill as we have been debating the fine details of the scheme? There is no more time to lose.

Jane Ellison: That point is well made and very much on my mind. When I can say more about the shape of our proposed reformed scheme, I hope my hon. Friend will see that we have tried to respond to her concerns and those of many other right. hon. and hon. Members.

Philippa Whitford: The Penrose inquiry was held in Scotland—there has not been a UK inquiry—and, in response, the Prime Minister made his statement about the £25 million transitional payment. These people are awaiting a final settlement and compensation for what the NHS did to them, but their suffering goes on. We were told that the transitional payment would be made this financial year to help people get to that settlement. The consultation is on the final arrangement, but we need some action now and people need access to the new hep C drugs. The Scottish Government have written about support for fuel payments, but we need the transitional money now. It should not be kicked into the long grass.

Jane Ellison: This certainly has not been kicked into the long grass. As I have told the House, it is my intention to consult in January. I have said before, but it is worth repeating, that although we are working to establish a fair resolution, liability has not been established in the majority of cases, so it is not appropriate to talk about compensation payments, particularly on the scale that some campaigners and colleagues envisage. I have been open about that for many months. The hon. Lady is right to make the point about treatments, and all those things will be considered. I can confirm to the House that, although the £25 million was allocated to be spent in this financial year, it will be carried forward. The money that the Prime Minister announced in March was to support the transition of the scheme, which we envisaged beginning next spring, following the consultation. The money will support that, and it will be carried forward.

Craig Mackinlay: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on securing the urgent question. I speak today on behalf of a constituent, a Mr Steve Dymond, who has hepatitis C as a result of contaminated blood products. Although he is in remission, a normal life for him is impossible. I know that new drugs and treatments are available. Will the Minister assure me that those advanced new treatments will be available to all sufferers without restrictions? I hope that, despite this delay, the closure we need will be delivered very shortly. This is a big subject in my part of Kent. It is trailed massively in the Kent on Sunday, which covers it regularly. We need closure and those affected need certainty in their lives. Can the Minister assure me of that?

Jane Ellison: I have corresponded directly with Mr Dymond’s partner, so I know the level of suffering he endures. On the new treatments, the drug landscape on hepatitis C infection, which is very different from even a couple of years ago, is uppermost in my mind as I consider how to reform the scheme and support those who suffer.

Gerald Kaufman: This announcement comes after the shambles of a meeting at the Department last month, when hon. Members from both sides of the House arrived for a stated time, only to be told, after waiting, that the meeting was over. We then received an apology from an official promising further information that was never supplied. Does the hon. Lady understand what being a Minister entails? It means being in charge and only making promises that can be kept. This has been a travesty, but it would not matter so much were it not for the sick people, including those in my constituency, who are living lives of hell and were looking to the Government, after the promises were made, for some kind of alleviation during their lifetimes. They have not got it.

Jane Ellison: I slightly regret the right hon. Gentleman’s tone, and I am totally mystified by his point about the meeting. A meeting was organised with the all-party group and his colleague the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North. I think the meeting might have been moved once, at the request of the all-party group, but the details and arrangements for the meeting with me were circulated by that group, and six right. hon. and hon. Members attended the meeting. I am sorry if there was some confusion, but I do not think it was on the part of me or my officials. A number of colleagues came to the meeting. We had a very useful discussion and I have sought to update others since.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right that we need to move towards a conclusion, but it is also a matter of record that he was, at times, a member of the last Labour Government, who, for 13 years, did not move forward on this matter.

Nadhim Zahawi: The Minister will be aware of my frustration in dealing, on behalf of a constituent, with the Macfarlane Trust, which she knows, from the weight of evidence in the consultation, is not fit for purpose. Will she confirm that any full and final settlement will not be administered by that trust?

Jane Ellison: I am well aware of the shortcomings of some of the schemes identified by colleagues and those affected by this tragedy, and I have obviously read the details from the all-party group and other Members’ communications. I have confirmed before that reducing the number of schemes will be part of the consultation on reforming the schemes, so my hon. Friend’s point is well made. For the record, though, I should add that I had a meeting recently with the staff of the schemes—the people who man the phones and deal on a day-to-day, week-to-week basis with sufferers—and I am clear that they, as distinct from the people who head up the trusts, are working hard to offer a service to people in difficult circumstances.

Norman Lamb: Is this not one of those situations where there is an absolute moral obligation on the Government to act and end the uncertainty and delay? Is the Minister reassured that the spending review gives her the ability to bring a lasting and fair settlement, and will she do everything she can to ensure it is in place by the start of the next financial year?

Jane Ellison: I am happy to assure my former colleague in the Department that the Secretary of State and my departmental colleagues take this matter extremely seriously. It is a matter on which we are seeking to move forward. It will be for those who respond to the consultation on the reformed scheme to give their views, but we are seeking to move towards a reformed scheme that responds to the criticisms of the existing schemes and offers sustainability for people who have suffered for so long. I hope I can satisfy the right hon. Gentleman in that regard, although I will be able to say more in the new year, when we publish the scheme details.

Tom Pursglove: One of my constituents, Sue Wathen, is trying to access the Harvoni drug, but it is proving incredibly difficult, because she has not developed cirrhosis. She does, however, have an underlying medical condition that is being exacerbated by the contaminated blood. Much is being reported about greater access from February. Is that the case and will Mrs Wathen be able to access the treatment she so desperately needs? I would love a yes or no answer, because it is incredibly frustrating.

Jane Ellison: I would never give a yes or no answer to the individual health problems of a constituent I do not know, and I am not a clinician, but if my hon. Friend would like to write to me, I will certainly make sure I give an individualised response. Ultimately, however, the right clinical route for any one individual would come at the suggestion of their consultant hepatologist. Towards the end of November, NICE published new guidelines on three more drug treatments, so the drug landscape for hepatitis C is changing rapidly, but I am happy to ensure that hon. Members are kept fully informed. As I said in a previous debate, if people are concerned that their constituents are not aware of what is out there or do not feel they are getting the support they need to access treatment in line with the NICE guidance, we can offer advice to Members on how to make sure that happens. However, I am well aware of the general point he makes.

Catherine West: Will the Minister clarify whether individuals affected by this terrible scandal will receive individualised letters? How will they know that this consultation is opening next month?

Jane Ellison: My officials have been giving considerable thought to how to do that. A number of people are members of the existing schemes, so we have a means to communicate with them, but it is clear from experience of following up previous inquiries’ recommendations—for example, the one recommendation of the Penrose inquiry—that we make exhaustive efforts to inform everybody. In particular, we will want to inform people who have had a lump sum payment but are not members of the current scheme. We will make exhaustive efforts to inform people by every means possible. Members of Parliament can of course be of great assistance in that regard.

Peter Bone: Going back to the issue of medication, my constituents want to know the answer to this question: available drugs that have not yet been approved by NICE but that can be prescribed are not being prescribed locally on financial grounds. Is that not wholly unacceptable?

Jane Ellison: The NHS is looking at its response to the most recent NICE guideline—it was very recent, on 25 November, from memory. The NHS has commissioning arrangements in place for previous treatments that met NICE guidelines. It would be useful if my hon. Friend contacted me separately about the particular situation in which his constituents find themselves, and we might be able to provide some helpful support.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her response to the urgent question. Brian Carberry from County Down contracted hepatitis C from contaminated blood in July this year. Compensation is always important, but the really important issue for those affected is that it is not enough when a problem is health related. What discussions has the Minister had with the Northern Ireland Health Minister, Simon Hamilton, to tackle this issue?

Jane Ellison: My officials are working closely with their opposite numbers in all the devolved Administrations. As we move towards publication of the consultation, I will look to communicate directly with my opposite numbers in the devolved Administrations and pick up all these points.

Kevin Foster: I know from her statement that the Minister will appreciate the frustration that my constituents, some of whom have been waiting for an outcome for some decades, will feel at another delay. Given her comments on the carrying over of transitional funding, will she give me a clear idea of when she expects the new system to be in place?

Jane Ellison: We aim to consult, and we want to make sure that the final shape of the reformed scheme is informed by that consultation. As I have said, we look to start transitioning to a reformed scheme in the spring. At this stage, however, it is a little difficult to be more precise. We are working hard to ensure that aspects of the transition are being planned and thought about, and this will be informed by the final outcome of the consultation.

Margaret Ritchie: The Minister wrote to me on 6 November and stated:
	“The shape and structure of a new scheme will be decided following the consultation process that will begin by the end of this year as previously committed”—
	as it had been committed in an Adjournment debate on 9 September. I am deeply disappointed today that neither that scheme nor that consultation is in place. My constituent, Brian Carberry from Downpatrick in South Down, about whom my Adjournment debate was about, has told me in the last few weeks that he now has a form of cancer, with four tumours identified, as a result of the connection with contaminated blood. Will the Minister give me and the House an undertaking today that a full and final settlement will be in place before the end of this financial year.

Jane Ellison: I have already made my comments about the timing of the consultation, and I cannot add to what I said in response to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who put the urgent question. I have often spoken to the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) about this and I responded to her Adjournment debate. I think that the language she uses is applicable to circumstances before this exchange. I have already explained the issue of compensation and the principles that we shall try to apply to the reformed scheme. I cannot really add to the comments I made in my response to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North.

Andrew Slaughter: Let me challenge the Minister on the phrase “quieter voices”, which I have heard her use several times. It seems to be a code for addressing the important but less costly issues of treatment and reform of the current scheme rather than a full and final settlement to what Lord Winston rightly called the
	“worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS”.
	We have a moral duty here, so simply saying “the Chancellor will not give me the money” will not wash.

Jane Ellison: Again, I have said here today and previously in Westminster Hall what I believe the position to be with compensation. I accept that the hon. Gentleman has a different view and we had an exchange when he contributed to the discussion in November. I think it would be wrong to dismiss the idea of listening to quieter voices, which I have had the opportunity to do over the last couple of years, and as a result it has become clear that a number of people want a number of different things from a reformed scheme. It will not be possible to do everything that everyone wants. We are going to try to respond as best we can with a scheme that is sustainable, fair to all and responds to many of the points made here today.

Alison Thewliss: I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for tabling the urgent question. Only this Friday a constituent raised a number of issues about this very topic at my surgery and she will be most disappointed at this further delay. If the Minister has not done so already, will she take up the issue of continuing assessments by the Department for Work and Pensions? My constituent feels it is extremely strenuous that she has to continue to prove her case to qualify for benefits. She also found—she cannot be unique in the country—that the NHS treatment she received was not the most sensitive, and she would like to see some guidance issued for healthcare professionals.

Jane Ellison: I thank the hon. Lady for those comments and I will reflect on them. The DWP matters are outside the remit of the Department of Health, but I will take on board the general issues she raises and refer them to colleagues. As I have said, we continue to work with the devolved Administrations on NHS matters; if her constituent is being treated in Scotland, it is a devolved matter for the Scottish NHS.

Jonathan Reynolds: I appreciate the contrite tone of this question, but this is so very disappointing. My affected constituent simply wants to be able to buy a home and provide security to his family, but that is not available to him at present. Can I tell my constituent that next year a new scheme will be in place and that he will be eligible to receive support from it?

Jane Ellison: It is clearly my intention to have a reformed scheme in place next year. I do not know the circumstances of his constituent, so I cannot make that individual commitment. I have said that we want to move to a reformed scheme next year. I understand the frustration of Opposition Members, but, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) acknowledged, Governments of all shades and descriptions have not stood up to tackle this issue. We are going to try to do something; it will not satisfy everyone, but I hope we will be able to come forward with a scheme that will respond to many people’s concerns.

Chris Stephens: I, too, thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for raising this question. The Minister will recall a meeting I attended on 5 November, in which two main issues were discussed. The first was the setting up of a contingency fund, rather than having to rely on the spending review every year. Will the Minister confirm that she has written to the Treasury about that? Secondly, will the consultation consider the issue of family members who have lost loved ones as a result of contaminated blood?

Jane Ellison: I covered the issue of funding in my response. The hon. Gentleman attended the meeting, at which a number of matters were discussed. I do not think I can add much to what I have already said. This is a priority for the Department of Health, and we are seeking to identify the amount of money, on top of the transitional £25 million and the baseline spend on the current scheme, that we can use to support the reformed scheme.

Mike Kane: Six thousand infected, 2,000 dead, a 30-year struggle—this delay is just one part of the continuing nightmare that victims face. Can the Minister tell my constituents Fred Bates and Peter Mossman when the nightmare will come to an end?

Jane Ellison: I cannot right the wrongs of 30 years; I can only try to do what I can in the circumstances, and with the money that we will allocate. We will present plans for a reformed scheme, and I invite the hon. Gentleman and his constituents to respond to them. In developing those plans, I must look to the future, and ask what we can do to support people with a reformed scheme. In particular, I must ask how we can respond to some of the ways in which the circumstances in which we address this terrible, difficult tragedy have changed, and ensure that our response reflects those new circumstances.

Mark Durkan: The Minister may recall that when the all-party group met her in early November we warned her that any slippage would be greeted as slipperiness by people who had suffered delays for too long. Does she appreciate that people will worry about the possibility that the extra time has been taken to ensure that the consultation is more controlled and options are sealed off? Will she also address the underlying question that people want to ask? Why, if liability could be admitted by the Irish health service on the basis that the risk was known, can liability not be admitted by the NHS, and why cannot compensation be forthcoming?

Jane Ellison: Payments made by the Republic of Ireland are a matter for the Republic, and they were made in response to circumstances in Ireland relating to the use of blood products. We have covered that before, in debates.
	Of course I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration—I spoke to him informally last night to alert him to the fact that there was some delay—but I reiterate that it is better for us to produce a scheme into which we have had a chance to put more effort and a little more detail than, for the sake of a few weeks, to rush out something that would not give people any real sense of what was being consulted on. Although the delay is frustrating, as I have acknowledged a number of times, I think that it will give rise to a better and more meaningful consultation.

Drew Hendry: The victims are clearly identified, and a final settlement is well overdue. Weeks ago, in the Chamber, I asked the Government whether they would provide additional support for victims during the coming winter. It may be mild here, but it is not mild everywhere, and many of them are suffering from fuel poverty. It is Christmas. Given the ever-stretching time that it is taking to resolve this matter, will the Minister commit herself to providing the additional support? The Scottish Government have already asked her to do so, but will she make that commitment now?

Jane Ellison: The matter has been raised with me by Shona Robison, the Scottish Health Secretary, and I intend to respond to her in the next few days. The Northern Ireland and Wales Administrations are still considering the matter, and have not fed anything back to me about Shona Robison’s proposals. I did raise them with the Members who attended the all-party parliamentary group meeting in early November, but there was relatively limited interest at that time.

Daesh: Syria/Iraq

Philip Hammond: With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement updating the House on the campaign against Daesh in Iraq and Syria.
	Two weeks ago, the House voted for the extension of UK airstrikes against Daesh in Iraq into Daesh’s heartland in Syria. As the Prime Minister and I explained during the debate that preceded the vote, the extension of military strikes is just one part of our strategy to bring stability to Syria and Iraq by defeating Daesh, working towards a political transition in Syria, and supporting humanitarian efforts in the region. It has been welcomed by our international partners, including the United States, France, and other partners in Europe and the Gulf. During that debate, we committed ourselves to giving the House quarterly updates on the progress of our strategy, but, given the high level of interest expressed by Members during the debate, I decided to offer an early first update before the House rises this week.
	Let me deal first with the military strand of our strategy. As is well known, the first RAF airstrikes against Daesh in Syria were conducted just a few hours after the vote in the House, successfully targeting oil facilities in eastern Syria which provide Daesh with an important source of illicit income. Since then, RAF aircraft have conducted further strikes against Daesh in Syria, targeting wellheads in the extensive Omar oil field, as well as conducting reconnaissance and surveillance missions. To make that increased tempo of activity possible, a further two RAF Tornados and six Typhoons have been deployed to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, bringing the total number of manned aircraft conducting strikes from Akrotiri to 16—in addition to our RAF Reaper unmanned aircraft which are also deployed in the region.
	During the debate on 2 December, a number of right hon. and hon. Members expressed concern about the possibility of civilian casualties resulting from British military action. Of course there is a risk involved in any kind of combat strike activity, but I am pleased to inform the House that it continues to be the case that we have had no reports of civilian casualties as a result of UK airstrikes in either Iraq or Syria, and I pay tribute to the precision and professionalism of our RAF pilots in conducting those operations.
	In Iraq, Government forces continue to make progress against Daesh. The coalition began operations in Iraq in the autumn of 2014, and since then the strategically significant towns of Tikrit, Baiji and Sinjar have all been retaken. Ramadi, to the west of Baghdad, is now surrounded by Iraqi forces supported by US mentors, and its Daesh occupiers are being steadily squeezed, including by RAF close support operations. Importantly, work is well advanced in the building of a Sunni local police force, supported by local tribal forces, to hold and police the city once it is liberated. In total, RAF Tornados and Reaper drones have flown more than 1,600 missions over Iraq, conducting over 400 strikes.
	In Syria, the situation is more complicated. The majority of Russian air strikes continue to target Syrian opposition forces rather than Daesh. In the last two weeks, the Russians have attacked opposition forces between Homs and Aleppo and in the far north of Syria, and in doing so have allowed Daesh to seek advantage on the ground. Along with our coalition partners, including the United States, we will continue to urge the Russians at every opportunity to focus their fire solely on Daesh. It is unacceptable that Russian action is weakening the opposition, and thus giving advantage to the very Daesh forces against which they claim to be engaged.
	Let me now turn to the campaign to disrupt Daesh’s finances and stop the flow of foreign fighters. Experts estimate that the oil assets that have been targeted account for about 40% of Daesh revenues, and tomorrow my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will attend the first ever meeting of Finance Ministers at the Security Council in New York to agree a further strengthening of the UN’s sanctions regime against Daesh. It is, of course, also crucial that countries enforce sanctions strictly with appropriate investigations and prosecutions. To ensure that we have our own house in order, we have begun the review of funding of Islamist extremist activity in the UK which was ordered by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and which will report to him in the spring. We continue to work with Turkey and others to build an increasingly sophisticated network to interdict foreign fighters seeking to enter Syria.
	As well as relying on money, Daesh relies heavily on propaganda to attract financial support and new recruits, so we have stepped up our effort to counter its messaging. The UK has created a coalition communications cell which is working to combat and undermine the Daesh “brand”, ensuring that no communications space currently exploited by Daesh is left uncontested. The coalition cell will generate a full range of communications at the pace and scale that will be necessary to highlight Daesh’s cruel and inhumane treatment of individuals under its control, its failures on the battlefield, and its perversion of Islam. The cell has already received staffing and financial contributions from coalition partners, and others have expressed strong support and an intention to contribute.
	At the heart of our comprehensive strategy is a recognition that, to defeat Daesh in its heartland, we need a political track to bring an end to the civil war and to have in place a transitional Government in Syria. The world could then, once again, support a legitimate Syrian Government so that the Syrian army, Syrian opposition forces and Kurdish peshmerga could concentrate their efforts against Daesh, liberating their own country from this evil organisation.
	Diplomatic efforts to deliver a negotiated end to the civil war and a transitional Government are continuing apace. The International Syria Support Group, bringing together all the major international players, has agreed the need for a ceasefire, humanitarian access and an end to attacks on civilians. In its communiqué of 14 November, the ISSG set out its goals: a transitional Government within six months, a new constitution and new, internationally supervised elections within 18 months. A further meeting of the support group is expected to take place in New York on Friday, which I shall attend. In preparation for that meeting, I met the Foreign
	Ministers of like-minded members of the ISSG in Paris on Monday, including the US, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
	Separately, in Riyadh last week, Saudi Arabia brought together well over 100 representatives from a wide range of Syrian opposition groups to agree an opposition negotiating commission and a negotiating policy statement ahead of talks between the Syrian opposition and the Syrian regime, convened by the UN, which we hope will begin in January. The conference committed to Syria’s territorial integrity, to the continuity of the Syrian state and to negotiations under the framework of the Geneva communiqué. The participants also committed themselves to a
	“democratic mechanism through a pluralistic system, representing all spectrums of the Syrian people, men and women, without discrimination or exclusion on a religious, sectarian or ethnic basis, and based on the principles of citizenship, human rights, transparency, and accountability, and the rule of law over everyone.”
	Given the diversity of the Syrian opposition, I regard that as a significant achievement and I congratulate Saudi Arabia on it. The UK will continue to provide full support to intra-Syrian negotiations.
	In Iraq, we continue to support Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to deliver the reform and reconciliation needed to unite all Iraq’s communities in the fight against Daesh. I also welcome the recent announcement of the formation of an Islamic military coalition to fight terrorism, bringing together 34 Muslim countries to partner with the rest of the international community. I have discussed that initiative in detail with my Saudi counterpart, Foreign Minister Al-Jubeir. Its clear intention is to create a coalition that is flexible, contributing on a case-by-case basis and defending moderate Islam from the forces of extremism.
	On the need for continued humanitarian support and post-conflict stabilisation in both Syria and Iraq, as the Prime Minister outlined to the House again today at Prime Minister’s questions, the end of the civil war in Syria and the defeat of Daesh in both Iraq and Syria will present the international community with an enormous and urgent stabilisation challenge. Building on our humanitarian support during the Syria crisis—we remain the second largest bilateral donor—we have committed a minimum of £1 billion to Syria’s reconstruction in the long term. In February, the Prime Minister will co-host, with Germany, Kuwait, Norway and the UN, an international conference in London, focused on meeting both the UN 2016 appeal to support refugees from the civil war, as well as longer-term financial commitments for Syria and its neighbours.
	Since the House took the decision two weeks ago to extend our military effort into Syria, the Government have taken forward, with our coalition partners, our comprehensive strategy to degrade—and ultimately to defeat—Daesh. We are making steady progress in both Iraq and Syria. We are targeting Daesh’s finances through military action and through action with international partners. We are disrupting the flow of foreign fighters. We are fighting Daesh’s ideology and propaganda. We are a leading player in the diplomatic effort to deliver a political settlement to end the Syrian civil war, and we are preparing for the day after that settlement and the defeat of Daesh so that we can ensure the long-term future stability and security of Iraq and Syria.
	The fight against Daesh will not be won overnight but, however long it takes, it is in our vital national interest to defeat that terrorist organisation and the direct threat it poses to our national security. Failure is not an option. I commend this statement to the House.

Diana R. Johnson: I begin by passing on the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the shadow Foreign Secretary, who is unable to respond to the statement because he is visiting the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel. On behalf of the Opposition, I thank the Foreign Secretary for the courtesy extended to me by his office, for advance sight of his statement and for updating the House before the recess.
	The scale of the humanitarian catastrophe stemming from the civil war in Syria is almost too great to comprehend. The death toll is well over 250,000 people. Millions of men, women and children will spend this Christmas as refugees living in tents in Lebanon and Turkey, and in Europe in Greece, Serbia and Calais. Even after all the brutality we have seen over the past four years, the situation continues to deteriorate. This week there were the appalling reports that Daesh will murder children who have Down’s syndrome. The international community has failed the people of Syria and we must now do everything we can to address the situation.
	On the military aspect of the UK’s strategy, I note that UK military action up to now has focused, first, on economic infrastructure, particularly oil, which is so key to financing Daesh and, secondly, on alleviating the pressure on Kurdish peshmerga forces operating in Syria. It is notable, however, that the Foreign Secretary did not mention action to support other moderate forces in Syria. Can he update the House on what progress the Government have made in identifying and co-ordinating with such forces?
	I note that the Foreign Secretary stated that there had been no civilian casualties resulting from UK military action in Iraq and Syria. Can he outline to the House the steps taken before a strike is authorised to minimise civilian casualties and then after a strike has occurred to ensure any possible civilian casualties are investigated?
	I pay tribute to the outstanding bravery and professionalism of the British military personnel who have carried out these early missions. When we all return to our constituencies over the Christmas break, and return to our families, these very brave men and women will be continuing to serve our country in difficult and dangerous circumstances. For this, they deserve our unflinching admiration and respect.
	Of course, as the Opposition have consistently argued, military action could only ever be a part of the package of measures needed to defeat Daesh and end the Syrian civil war. The UK’s overriding priority has to be supporting a diplomatic agreement that unites the elements opposed to Daesh within Syria and paves the way for the departure of Assad. The first step to this is an agreement between the Sunni factions opposed to both Assad and Daesh.
	I note the progress towards that achieved in Riyadh. There has been a lot of speculation about those talks, so can the Foreign Secretary inform the House how the groups that were invited to attend the talks were selected?
	Did the UK make representations to the Saudis as to who should be invited? In particular, were key Kurdish groups such as the Syrian Democratic Forces and the Democratic Union party present at the talks?
	It was reported that the Salafist group Ahrar al-Sham pulled out of the Riyadh talks last week and was opposed to any peace talks with Assad. It was later reported that it had signed the agreement, so can the Foreign Secretary confirm the correct position? That group has an estimated 20,000 fighters. Can he also confirm whether those 20,000 formed part of the 70,000 figure the Government cited as being moderate forces opposed to Assad and Daesh?
	The key test for the Riyadh agreement will be whether it facilitates meaningful peace talks and a ceasefire, as outlined at the second Vienna conference. I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary is optimistic about the possibilities for these talks. Can he confirm whether, following the Riyadh agreement, the Syrian opposition will have a common position and a single representative at these talks, or whether there will be distinct factions represented at the talks?
	The original timetable was for a possible cessation of hostilities to coincide with the start of peace talks from 1 January. Does the Foreign Secretary still think this is achievable? Was there a clear commitment to this timetable from all the parties present at the Syria talks in Paris on Monday?
	With so many different parties to the Syrian civil war, maintaining a ceasefire will be extremely complex. Have the Government explored the possibility of a UN resolution reinforcing the outline agreement, including the ceasefire, agreed at the second Vienna conference? Can the Government confirm whether they will seek a UN resolution to support any agreement that is reached between Syrian opposition forces and Assad?
	Finally, I want to return to the humanitarian response and the millions of refugees in tents this Christmas. In Lebanon, nearly one in four of the population is a recent refugee from Syria. Jordan is hosting more than 1 million Syrian refugees. Around 340,000 refugees have been resettled in Germany. Just this week we saw Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau welcoming the first of 35,000 refugees to be resettled in Canada by next October. And I was pleased to hear in Prime Minister’s questions today that the 1,000 refugees the Government had promised to resettle will be here in the UK by Christmas.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Lady and she is right to highlight yet another recent example of Daesh’s cruelty. I do not think there is anything that this organisation is not capable of.
	The hon. Lady asked about the focus of UK military activity. It is important that I emphasise that we do not do this independently as a national contingent. We are operating as part of a coalition. Our aircraft are assigned to CAOC—the combined air operations centre—which tasks them to whatever task needs doing at the time, and this can literally be aircraft in the air being diverted to provide close air support to forces on the ground who are engaged in an action.
	The hon. Lady asked about UK support for moderate forces. I am slightly confused by her question because the proposition put before this House two weeks ago was clear and narrow: it was about conducting airstrikes against Daesh in Syria. It was not about intervening in the civil war between the moderate opposition and regime forces. Different Members may have different views about the wisdom of taking such action, but at the moment we are very clear that that is not what the UK is engaged in doing.
	I should also just clarify: the hon. Lady said I had said in my statement that there had been no civilian casualties. I cannot, of course, make that statement. What I said was that we have had no reports of civilian casualties arising from UK airstrikes.
	The hon. Lady asked about what steps we take to minimise the risk of casualties. The RAF has, of course, very strict rules of engagement—among the strictest of any air force in the world. The Defence Secretary explained to the House that he has created structures that give a high degree of direct control over targeting decisions, and we use standard NATO procedures for analysing battle damage and dealing with any allegations of civilian casualties or collateral damage.
	I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her acknowledgement of the commitment of our 800 military personnel in theatre and her recognition of the sacrifice that their families in particular will be making this Christmas, spending it without their loved ones who are on active service.
	Of course, this military action is part of a comprehensive strategy. I think we all understand in this House that we are not going to resolve this problem by military action alone. The Riyadh talks were an important step forward. It was the Saudi Arabians who brought the opposition together, using their convening power—the convening power of the King of Saudi Arabia as the guardian of the two holy mosques. No one else could have done that. What we have now is a new opposition grouping which includes a large number of representatives of the armed opposition on the ground, and that is a significantly more legitimate body than previous representatives of the opposition which have tended to represent oppositionists who are outside the country and not directly engaged in the fighting.
	In answer to the hon. Lady’s direct question: yes, the UK and other coalition partners provided the Saudis with lists of suggestions about who should be included. Ultimately, who was included in the invitation was their decision.
	The hon. Lady asked me about the curious question of Ahrar al-Sham, and she is right to do so because there is a little ambiguity about its position. It attended the conference, it signed the declaration, but it did leave the conference before the end of it. But it has signed the declaration and we take it as bound by the commitments made in that declaration. For clarity, the figure 70,000 opposition fighters that we have used does not include the Ahrar al-Sham forces. While not extremists like al-Nusra or Daesh, they are clearly not democrats in the sense that Free Syrian Army supporters are, so we do not include them in that figure.
	The hon. Lady said I was optimistic about talks. I have to tell her that I am under no illusion that we still have a huge distance to go. We still have a chasm to bridge between ourselves on the one hand and the Russians and the Iranians on the other about the future of Bashar al-Assad, and that will be an issue for many of the oppositionists who are now engaging in this process.
	In terms of Syrian opposition unity, the convening power of Saudi Arabia can do a great deal to deliver that. The conference last week was a great step forward, but I do not think anyone should imagine that there will not be disagreements within the Syrian opposition even as they confront the Syrian regime in face-to-face talks, and it will not be a single negotiator; a negotiating panel will be selected.
	The hon. Lady asked about the ceasefire. It remains the clear intention of US Secretary of State John Kerry to try to get agreement on Friday in New York to a ceasefire. Frankly, that will be highly challenging, but I commend him for his ambition.
	We are also holding this meeting on Friday in New York rather than Vienna specifically to be able to go immediately to the United Nations Security Council if it becomes clear during the morning that it is possible to reach an agreement that the Russians will not veto in the UN Security Council. So there is a possibility—I put it no higher than that—that Friday’s meeting will end with a UN Security Council resolution.
	Finally, may I join the hon. Lady in commending the extraordinary effort and sacrifice of the people of Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey in providing refuge to so many of those fleeing the chaos in Syria, and taking this burden on unasked and without fanfare not just over the past few months, but for many, many years?

Crispin Blunt: May I join the Opposition in welcoming the Foreign Secretary’s update to the House, and also join him in congratulating the Saudi Arabians on success last week in assembling that opposition group?
	In relation to Ahrar al-Sham, what progress is there on the Jordanian task of identifying those Islamist groups that are going to stand outside the whole negotiation process between the Syrian Government and opposition forces? There have been long-standing disturbing reports of Turkish action, or inaction, on the Turkish-Syrian border that has served to aid Daesh. Now that the Foreign Secretary has identified Turkey as a like-minded member of the coalition, what reports does he have that action on that border is now firmly not in the interests of Daesh? Finally, turning to Iraq, he referred to the preparation of a Sunni police force for Ramadi; what progress is there on a Sunni national guard force around Anbar and on the national guard Bill in the Iraqi Parliament?

Philip Hammond: On the Jordanian process, and the strand that is attempting to identify who should be considered terrorists, I spoke with my Jordanian counterpart on Monday evening. That work is progressing and all parties have fed in their views on the vast number of different groups. The Jordanians are currently seeking to distinguish those groups that have a significant number of fighters from those that comprise only one or two dozen people, and cross-referencing the views of the different coalition partners. That is work in progress.
	On the question of the Turkish-Syrian border, I had a meeting yesterday with the US President’s special envoy, Brett McGurk, the successor to General John Allen, and we talked about this issue. He told me that there were clear signs on the ground that the Turks were moving to close the border along the 60-odd mile gap that remains open. That is very good news. On the question of the Iraqi national guard, the legislation to create a national guard, which we regard as important, is bogged down in the Iraqi Parliament. It is precisely for that reason that the rather pragmatic approach of creating an armed local police as a ground-holding mechanism in the absence of the ability to create a national guard has been taken.

Alex Salmond: I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving me early sight of his statement. UK forces in theatre carry the admiration and support of those on these Benches. I would like the Foreign Secretary to tell us more about three aspects of this issue. First, I welcome the new initiatives on finance and on information and propaganda. He said that the Chancellor would be going to the first ever meeting of Finance Ministers in the Security Council to pursue the Security Council resolutions. Does it not speak volumes that that is the first meeting to tackle the flows of finance, the financial institutions and the arms dealers without whom Daesh could not move a muscle or fire a shot? Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that, after waiting so long for initiatives in this direction, these will be pursued as vigorously as are other elements of the tactics?
	Secondly, the Foreign Secretary announced that a communications cell had been established. Can he tell us how many people—and how much money—have been devoted to intercepting, interrupting and counteracting Daesh propaganda? Given the extraordinary financial cost of military action, it would be of interest to the House to have that comparison between what is spent militarily and what is spent on countering Daesh’s poisonous propaganda.
	Finally, on the subject of civilian casualties, I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary said that there had been no reported casualties as a result of UK action in Syria. However, he also knows that the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has reported in the last few days that 26 civilian casualties have resulted from the action of the coalition of which we are part, including the reported deaths of seven children and four women. As the bombing moves into urban areas and city centres such as Raqqa, where I understand there has been no bombing by UK forces as yet, will he tell us by what means we will take forward the NATO protocols on investigating reports of civilian casualties, and how that will be reported timeously to this House and elsewhere?

Philip Hammond: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, particularly for his comment on the commitment of UK forces to their task. This will be the first meeting of Finance Ministers in the Security Council, and I think that sends a very clear signal about the importance with which we regard the issue. It does not mean that no steps have been taken; many measures have been taken already. Financial sanctions are in place, and a financial flows working group, led by Bahrain, has been operating for a year now, but the fact that Finance Ministers of the key countries in the world are going to New York tomorrow to sit in the forum of the Security Council to pass further sanctions measures is an important symbol of our commitment to shutting down this channel of Daesh’s lifeblood. We regard it as extremely important.
	We saw, in relation to sanctions on Iran, that getting the financial sanctions right was at least as important as getting the sanctions on flows of physical goods right.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the communications cell. The operation of the cell necessarily encroaches into the area of the secret intelligence agencies’ work, so I cannot give him details of the resources available to it or of the number of people deployed in it, but I can tell him that it is already having a visible and measurable effect on Daesh’s communication channels. He also asked me about deaths resulting from coalition action. Of course, any civilian death is deeply regrettable. I was referring to deaths attributable to RAF action, and I believe that while the House will obviously be concerned about civilian deaths more widely, it will be on the question of RAF-caused civilian casualties that hon. Members will want to focus, and I intend to ensure that the House remains updated if the situation changes in respect of any reports of any RAF-caused civilian casualties.
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me about the protocols for investigating civilian casualty reports as the campaign moves on. NATO has well-established protocols for investigating any incidents where CIVCAS are estimated to have occurred or where imagery suggests that there could have been collateral damage to civilian buildings, and it routinely publishes the outcome of those investigations.

John Baron: Recent discussions with Government officials on a visit to countries in the region confirmed that key questions remain unanswered about the Government’s strategy on combating Daesh, which remains the best-funded terrorist group in history. On the non-military side, why are hard questions not being asked of regional allies about the funding of donations to Daesh from within those countries? When it comes to oil, why are we not asking our regional allies not only to disrupt the flow of stolen oil heading north but to combat the end customers of that oil? Without a market, there can be no cash flow.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is right. We are focusing on all channels of funding to Daesh. He asserts again that it is receiving funding from within the region, and of course I cannot be certain that there are no channels of funding remaining open to Daesh from the region, but I am confident that none of the Governments in the region either contribute to or condone any such funding. On the question of the flow of oil, he well knows that that oil is being sold into a black market, and I am afraid that black markets are an inevitable consequence of any kind of embargo on the sale of goods. We are doing everything we can to interdict and disrupt the flow of oil and indeed to disrupt the flow of the proceeds of the sale of that oil. He will know that the scale of that production is small and that the means of transport are crude and sometimes even primitive, so it is difficult to disrupt that process to the extent that we would like. Bombing the wellheads so that the stuff cannot be produced in the first place is likely to be the most efficient way to do it.

Ben Bradshaw: Following on from the comments of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), is not the crucial difference that the
	RAF goes out of its way to avoid civilian casualties, while Daesh goes out of its way to destroy, kill and maim as many innocent civilians as it possibly can? As well as commending the professionalism and dedication of the RAF staff on the mission in the field, will the House also remember their families back home at RAF Marham, and at RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland, who will be without their loved ones this Christmas?

Philip Hammond: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right. The training and doctrine of the RAF and other NATO air forces are built around minimising the risk of civilian casualties. I am afraid that that is not the case with all air forces in the world and it is certainly not the case with Daesh.

James Gray: I warmly welcome the broad-spectrum initiatives that the Foreign Secretary has announced, all of which are designed to degrade and eventually destroy Daesh. Outstanding among them is the Saudi Arabian initiative relating to an Islamic military coalition, which seems to me to be the basis for a very good ground force for the future. It is quite right that we should not be involved in that in any shape or form, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we have some capabilities to offer, perhaps in the form of command and control, training or other things which would not involve British troops being on the ground in Syria but which could none the less make a useful military contribution to the success of that coalition?

Philip Hammond: We have ruled out the use of UK combat forces in Syria, and indeed in Iraq, but we have not ruled out the provision of UK capabilities in support of combat forces provided by others. UK command and control, logistics, surveillance, and intelligence gathering and analysis could all provide a very substantial reinforcement to any troops that were deployed on the ground.

Stella Creasy: Yesterday, I met people from the Waltham Forest Council of Mosques to discuss Daesh. They share the concern to tackle the threat it poses, but do have questions about the strategy. The Secretary of State said that failure was not an option, but will he set out for my constituents a bit more about what he means by either failure or success in our operations in Syria?

Philip Hammond: For me, success is the destruction of Daesh. As I have said many times in this House, I do not delude myself into thinking that destroying Daesh will end the threat of Islamist extremism, but this particular iteration of it as a military force occupying territory has to be ended. The struggle to defeat the perversion of Islam that the Daesh ideology—the extremism Islamist ideology—represents will take much longer. It will be the struggle of a generation, and it is a struggle that must be led by Muslims themselves, reclaiming their religion from the extremists.

Jason McCartney: I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s briefing and look forward to similar such briefings in the new year. As chairman of the all-party group on Kurdistan, I was wondering what feedback or briefings the Foreign Secretary has had, and what effect there has been on the morale and military capability of Kurdish peshmerga forces following these targeted UK airstrikes on both sides of the Syria-Iraq border.

Philip Hammond: The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) was in Kurdistan yesterday and he reports that our action has boosted morale among Kurdish forces, as we would expect. In particular, what has been happening around Sinjar has considerably boosted morale and the strategic position of Kurdish forces. They are extremely delighted—there is no other word for it—about the decision this House made two weeks ago.

Stephen Twigg: In his statement, the Secretary of State said, “The majority of Russian air strikes continue to target Syrian opposition forces rather than Daesh.” Is it not clear that Russia’s priority is to protect the Assad regime? Does it remain the position of the British Government that Assad cannot be part of any solution to the Syrian crisis?

Philip Hammond: I long since gave up using the word “clear” to describe anything about Russian policy, because it is anything but clear—it is always opaque. We simply do not know what the Russian strategy is. We do not know what Russia’s objectives are, and my assessment is that most people in the Russian system do not either; perhaps Mr Putin has in his head an idea about what the end game is. What I do know is that some 75% of Russian airstrikes are being conducted against people whom we believe have to be part of the solution to the Syrian problem, not against Daesh, which we are very clear is the enemy.

John Redwood: I welcome the emphasis on a political solution and possible ceasefire in Syria. Given the growing strength of Daesh in Libya, can my right hon. Friend tell us how we might get political progress in Libya? Are there military consequences of that growing concentration?

Philip Hammond: As they say, I am glad that my right hon. Friend asked me that question, because it just so happens that a signing ceremony is planned for tomorrow in Morocco, at which it is hoped by the UN special representative, Mr Martin Kobler, that a majority of the House of Representatives and a significant number of members of the General National Congress will sign an agreement creating a Government of national accord. If that happens tomorrow, the western countries and the Gulf countries will swing behind that Government of national accord and will look to build their capability as soon and as quickly as possible, so that we can start to work in Libya to contain the threat that Daesh now clearly represents in that country.

Lisa Cameron: With the escalation of the UK’s role in the conflict, the Department for International Development should form a central part of the planning processes to ensure that the humanitarian situation in Syria does not deteriorate. How will the Government ensure that coalition military operations do not worsen the conditions faced by civilians in Syria or negatively affect DFID’s capacity to deliver humanitarian assistance?

Philip Hammond: DFID does do precisely what the hon. Lady has suggested, but of course the lion’s share of DFID work is concentrated in supporting refugees who have left the country. We face issues associated with getting supplies into Syria to support refugees, and one crucial strategic area is the relatively small corridor along the Turkey-Syria border that still remains open to international traffic. Securing that and making sure it remains open is a key objective of coalition forces, for humanitarian reasons.

Gerald Howarth: May I warmly applaud the new impetus that has been given to the diplomatic approach and say how delighted I am that the UK is playing such a prominent role, led by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to boot? The role being played by Saudi Arabia is also to be welcomed. In his statement, he set out the details of the strikes by the RAF that have taken place in Iraq, but he did not mention what has happened in Syria. Given that the application of the dual mode Brimstone was such a key difference between us and other coalition partners, can he set out how many strikes have taken place in Syria with the dual mode Brimstone or give us more detail on other strikes that have taken place?

Philip Hammond: As my hon. Friend well knows, those are operational details that I cannot give more detail on. As I said in response to the Opposition spokesman, the UK forces are committed to the combined air operations centre, which tasks aircraft from coalition countries with whatever task is in hand. The analysis of strikes carried out by the coalition is done by CAOC and in due course—in the new year, I believe—it will release those figures.

Graham Allen: Does the Secretary of State ever tune in to the Airwars website? If he does, he will see its estimate of between 660 and 970 civilian casualties in the last 15 months of operation in Iraq and Syria. Will he please send an official from the Foreign Office to discuss with people from that website the definition of a “non-combatant”—a civilian—casualty and work that out, so that this House may know the truth about how many civilians are dying in Iraq and Syria as a result of our actions?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman put a slight caveat in his question in the last few words when he said “as a result of our actions”. Of course he is absolutely right to say that civilians are dying in Iraq—they are dying at the hands of Daesh and they are dying as a result of ongoing conflict across the country. Our commitment is to ensure that civilian casualties arising from the operations of the RAF are minimised or, ideally, avoided altogether, and I am sure that we are doing an excellent job.

Graham Allen: Will you send an official?

Philip Hammond: I do not know the website that the hon. Gentleman is talking about and I cannot commit a Foreign Office official to go to talk to a website. We have to use proper, official definitions of civilian casualties, co-ordinated through CAOC.

Nusrat Ghani: I join my right hon. Friend in welcoming the 34-nation coalition formed by Saudi Arabia to defeat terrorism. Will he urge all middle east states, whether Shi’a or Sunni, to get behind this military Islamic alliance to defeat Daesh, because stability in the region also requires bold but much-needed steps towards a Sunni and Shi’a reconciliation?

Philip Hammond: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on that. The Sunni-Shi’a division in the middle east, which is a relatively new phenomenon to the politics of the region, is unhelpful and, ultimately, destabilising. I am assured by my Saudi Arabian counterpart that the initial 34 nations that have announced their membership of this coalition is not an exclusive list and that other countries are considering joining. I very much hope that further countries will join, giving it the broadest base and the greatest legitimacy possible.

Jo Cox: I remain deeply concerned about the lack of progress on civilian protection inside Syria, much of which is being perpetrated by the Assad regime. Does the Secretary of State agree that ending Assad’s indiscriminate use of barrel bombs is a key confidence-building measure that should be prioritised alongside efforts towards a formal ceasefire? Should a ceasefire not be delivered on Friday, may I urge him to look again at other measures to protect civilians, including putting in place no-bombing zones. Will he also reconfirm the Government’s unequivocal commitment not to have truck with anyone—including the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)—who says that working with Assad’s forces is a compromise that we should be willing to make? That would be not only morally wrong, but counter-productive given that Assad is Daesh’s biggest recruiting sergeant.

Philip Hammond: As I said in my statement, the US Secretary of State aspires to deliver a ceasefire as an outcome of Friday’s meeting, but even he recognises that that is ambitious. We are also very focused on confidence-building measures, which do not go as far as a ceasefire, but are likely to be more readily achievable. They include an end to the use of indiscriminate weapons in civilian areas, an end to the bombing of hospitals and medical facilities and a guarantee of humanitarian access to besieged areas on both sides of the conflict. The hon. Lady asked me whether we would consider alternative methods of protecting the civilian population, with specific emphasis on no-bomb zones. We have looked extensively at that, and much military effort has gone into analysing what is and what is not possible. I am afraid that the analysis is that it will not be something that is practical to deliver in the absence of forces on the ground, and, as she knows, we have no intention of committing forces on the ground.
	I want to pick up on the point that the hon. Lady made about Assad. The reason why we say that Assad can play no part in the future is not just to do with a sense of moral outrage about what he has done. We all want to end the killing and, despite what has happened in the past, if I thought that that would bring an end to the killing more quickly, I would look at it, but it will not. We will not get a ceasefire, an end to the civil war and all the guns in Syria turned on Daesh until Assad has gone.

Richard Benyon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when one sups with Vladimir Putin, one needs a very long spoon? It is very dangerous for some of our European colleagues to say that his involvement in this battle is somehow helpful and that we should reconsider sanctions against him. Will he confirm that that is not the view of the Government?

Philip Hammond: The Government have been clear that anyone who genuinely wants to take part in the fight against Daesh is welcome to join the coalition and to do so, but what the Russians have done so far is, at best, ambiguous. Yes, they have bombed Daesh positions. Although the percentage of Russian airstrikes targeting Daesh has increased since the loss of the Russian aircraft over Sinai—which was almost certainly to a Daesh-inspired or planned bomb attack—they are still only about 25% of the total of their airstrikes. The remainder are targeted at the moderate opposition, and that is, to put it mildly, deeply unhelpful.

Jim Shannon: The Minister referred in his statement to a coalition of 70,000 troops to defeat Daesh. The coalition is very diverse, with groups having different goals, ambitions and strategies. Will he update the House on how that coalition army is coming together? Who will lead it? How is its training going, and has it got the crucial equipment?

Philip Hammond: As we covered quite extensively in the debate two weeks ago, this is not a single army; of course it is not. There are diverse groups fighting the opposition. We have identified approximately 70,000 fighters whom we regard as within the pale in the sense that they have objectives with which we can broadly associate and that they are people with whom we are broadly prepared to work. As I set out in my speech closing that debate two weeks ago, the way we envisage this working is through an end to the civil war, thus creating a legitimate Government in Syria, which the international community can support with training, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, weapons, ammunition and command and control support. The Syrian army, thus legitimised, will work alongside these various other militias going after Daesh to finish the job of reclaiming the territory of Syria. That is the outcome that we seek.

Nadhim Zahawi: Daesh is on the back foot in Iraq. Sinjar has been liberated and, as we speak, Iraqi forces are fighting street by street in the liberation of Ramadi. There have been some very good and positive outcomes with the return of the Sunnis to Tikrit, but there have been some greater challenges around Diyala, and there is a real need for a strong political push for post-conflict co-ordination in that country. We have a strong ambassador who is respected by all parties. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to us taking a lead on that post-conflict co-ordination in Iraq to safeguard the Sunni return?

Philip Hammond: We have been doing just that. As my hon. Friend says, we have considerable influence in both Baghdad and Irbil. The problem is that some of the steps that need to be taken to create an environment in which the Sunni population in Iraq feels comfortable and as if they are fully fledged citizens of the country are blocked in the Iraqi Parliament. They are being blocked for a variety of reasons, some of which are to do with the basis of power politics rather than issues of high principle.

John Woodcock: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Vladimir Putin must choose whether he wants his country to remain a respected member of the UN Security Council, or whether he wants to continue down the road towards being an international pariah and rogue state? If Russia chooses the latter path, do the UK and coalition partners have the steel to ensure that it does not profit in any way from its flagrant abuses in the region?

Philip Hammond: I want to answer that question carefully. I have said before in this House that, while I deplore many things that the Russians do, I do not believe that Russia is soft on Daesh. Russia and President Putin recognise a threat from Daesh to Russia, which is at least as great as the threat from Daesh to the west. Russia has 13 million Sunni Muslims living inside the borders of the Russian Federation. What we disagree about is methodology. Mr Putin would say, if he were here to answer the question, that he is going about defeating Daesh in the way that he believes will be most effective. We fundamentally disagree with him for the reason that I explained to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox), which is that unless and until Assad is gone, we will not get a reconciliation in the Syrian civil war and we will not get all Syrians turning their guns on Daesh.

Mr Speaker: The fellow may have some difficulty securing election in a UK constituency by the recognisably democratic methods that we favour, but I know what the Foreign Secretary was saying. I call Mr David Tredinnick.

David Tredinnick: My right hon. Friend has referred at some length to the challenges presented by Russia, but does he not agree that there are now also huge opportunities? A very good example is the co-operation we saw yesterday with Tim Peake going into space. Does he recall that, 24 years ago, another British cosmonaut, Helen Sharman—she was known as the woman from Mars, because she worked for the Mars confectionery company—went up in space, and the former Member for the Western Isles, Calum MacDonald, and I were there to see it at the Baikonur cosmodrome? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that, overall, it is now in the British national interest to have better relations with Russia, and that if he wants more co-operation at the UN, it would be a good idea to look again at the Russian-Ukrainian situation?

Philip Hammond: Yes, clearly those are two separate situations, and we are not trading them off. Russia must comply with its international obligations in relation to Ukraine. It must remove its troops from the territory and comply with its obligations under the Minsk agreement. It must also decide whether it wants to be part of the international coalition against Daesh, or whether it is pursuing other objectives by its own methods.

Alison McGovern: It is right that the Foreign Secretary has come to the House to make his statement today, and it is right that hon.
	Members across the House pay tribute to the inspiring commitment of our armed forces and their families; but on the subject of commitment, does he think it a little strange that we keep hearing the Government berate other countries for their lack of commitment on aid for Syria, when our commitment to refugees has been so very poor? Does he think that it would improve our diplomatic commitment if we gave a little more sanctuary to just a few more people?

Philip Hammond: No. As I have said before, we are clear that the best way to support most refugees is by providing the aid that they need for the food programmes, healthcare, shelter and education for their children, to enable them to remain in the region until the conflict is over and then to return to their homes to rebuild their country and be part of Syria’s future. We have said we will accept for resettlement those who are especially vulnerable, as defined by the UN. They are the most vulnerable refugees, requiring extensive support once they arrive here, and we are proud to have resettled 1,000 of them by Christmas.

Helen Whately: My right hon. Friend has reassured us that President Assad cannot be part of the long-term solution. Will he advise us whether all necessary parties, including the Assad regime, are co-operating with the political process, which is so important alongside military action?

Philip Hammond: The Assad regime has said that it has selected its negotiating team and is ready to meet the Syrian opposition on a no-preconditions basis. Of course that assertion remains to be tested, but the regime has indicated that it is willing to engage in those discussions. As in many things around the conflict, in the end the attendance of the Syrian team at the talks will depend, I am sure, crucially on a phone call from Moscow.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I was going to call the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), but I wish to be assured that he did not leave the Chamber at any stage.

Graham Jones: I just nipped to the gentleman’s—

Mr Speaker: Very well; I will not inquire further into the hon. Gentleman’s domestic arrangements.

Graham Jones: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for a welcome statement. He talks about defeating Daesh and, of course, all the financial implications, but as we see in Afghanistan, ISIS is now recruiting in 24 of the 39 states. It is transferring money clearly from the oilfields of Syria and Iraq to fund that campaign and paying some of its soldiers—the foreign fighters— $600 a month, and it has now got trained divisions in Afghanistan and has declared war on the Taliban. What is the Government’s assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, and what does he think ought to be done to defeat Daesh?

Philip Hammond: Whatever the hon. Gentleman’s issues, after the 11-and-a-half-hour Syria debate, it is not a problem that any of us think you share, Mr Speaker.
	I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. There is evidence of Daesh penetration in many countries, including Afghanistan. What we have to do in Afghanistan is to continue to support the Government, as we and the international coalition have done, to fund the Afghan national police and the Afghan national army to resist the attempt to create a new caliphate, and we will find that happening elsewhere. We need to be clear about this; it will pop up in other countries as well, and we need to be ready to respond to it, wherever it arises.

Stephen Hammond: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the remarks about humanitarian support and his answer on humanitarian corridors. Can he tell the House any more about the ongoing discussions on securing access across Syria for humanitarian support and whether there has been any progress in meeting the resolution?

Philip Hammond: That will be one of the issues on the table on Friday. I mentioned earlier an end to the indiscriminate use of weapons in civilian areas and to the bombing of medical facilities and humanitarian access to besieged areas—the three early confidence-building measures that the UK in particular is promoting and will be promoting at the conference on Friday.

Kirsten Oswald: The Prime Minister has been clear in telling us that there have been no civilian casualties as a result of our actions in Iraq or Syria, and the Foreign Secretary has clarified today that there have been no reports of civilian casualties as a result of RAF action, so I was surprised to read yesterday that, when asked how many people had been killed by UK airstrikes, the Ministry of Defence responded, “What do you mean by ‘people’?” Will he clarify what the Ministry of Defence means by “people”?

Philip Hammond: No; that is a question for the Ministry of Defence. Clearly, people will have been killed as a result of airstrikes, but we have no reports of civilian casualties. I cannot, I am afraid, tell the hon. Lady anything further than that.

Henry Smith: I very much commend the update and briefing that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has given us. I was privileged last month to visit the Kirkuk region and meet the peshmerga, who were extremely grateful for the RAF air support that we have been giving; Daesh has been curtailed in more than a third of the territory that it once held in the region. May I have assurances that we will continue to work directly with the Kurds, both in the autonomous region of Iraq and in Syria, to ensure that we press the fight further to Daesh?

Philip Hammond: As my hon. Friend is well aware from his visit, we are providing direct support, training and mentoring to Kurdish forces in Iraq. At present, we do not carry out that kind of activity with the Kurdish forces in Syria. Frankly, Kurdish forces in Syria have demonstrated their fighting capabilities and the adequacy of their supply lines and training arrangements.

Khalid Mahmood: Is the Foreign Secretary not concerned that the further involvement of tribal groups and others such as the
	Muslim Brotherhood and some al-Qaeda groups will lead to further conflict, as we have already seen in Libya? Is not the best way forward to engage with the 34-member group that Saudi Arabia is putting together, with our coalition, to have the people and troops to deal with this problem properly and realistically, rather than by using wishful thinking?

Philip Hammond: I do not think that the two are mutually exclusive. It may be possible in the future, once we have established a transitional Government in Syria, to rally diverse opposition forces against Daesh, alongside what is left of the Syrian army—possibly supported by specialist interventions from members of 34 Muslim nation coalition, special forces, logistics, targeters, military intelligence analysts and so forth. That is probably the most effective model that we can put together.

Wendy Morton: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement to the House today and his ongoing commitment to continue to make such statements. The crisis in Syria has truly become a regional conflict, not just because of the impact of Islamic State, but because of the increasingly concerning refugee crisis. Does he agree that we must continue to support the authorities in Jordan and Lebanon, which have been so greatly impacted by the influx of refugees from Syria?

Philip Hammond: Yes. We are working with all three countries—Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey—but particularly closely with Jordan, in trying to produce an innovative scheme that will allow refugees in Jordan to access the labour market and to support the Jordanian economy in a way that allows them to engage with that programme.

Tom Brake: In parallel with military action against Daesh—I support such action—the UK Government must work harder to support Syrian refugees. Will the Foreign Secretary set out the UK Government’s position on the private sponsorship of vulnerable refugees? Such sponsorship, which is supported by a range of organisations from Churches to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, would allow more vulnerable refugees, beyond the 20,000 already agreed by the Government, to find sanctuary in the UK. Will the UK Government support that?

Philip Hammond: The right hon. Gentleman has asked that question of the Prime Minister. While being clear that we think that our position is right on admitting 20,000 vulnerable refugees, the Prime Minister has said that he will look further at the question of orphaned children, and I will remind him of that commitment.

Seema Kennedy: I join other Members in welcoming the statement. I welcome the news that Ministers have been urging the UN special envoy to involve Syrian women’s groups in the peace process. Can my right hon. Friend update the House on the response to those representations?

Philip Hammond: I am afraid there is not such great news to report on that front. The gender balance at the Riyadh meeting was disappointing. Given that it was happening around the time that Saudi Arabia itself was taking a historic step forward in women’s participation in its political system, that is disappointing. We have fed back our concern about that, and the UN special representative, as my hon. Friend said, is particularly focused on this issue.

Mark Durkan: Should we ponder with some scepticism the apparently ever more pivotal role that is accruing to Saudi Arabia, not just because of the provenance of some of the issues now being faced in this conflict and the Saudi role in Yemen, but because the precepts and principles which the Foreign Secretary quoted that were brokered by Saudi Arabia for the opposition negotiating commission are broken every day for Saudi Arabian citizens? Will the UK Government and others be trying to shepherd the opposition contribution to the negotiations planned for January, or will they leave that shepherding role to Saudi Arabia?

Philip Hammond: As I have already said, we have provided support to the Syrian opposition in logistical terms in trying to prepare its role as a negotiating convention, and we will continue to do so. Nobody should underestimate the power that Saudi Arabia has because of the position of the King of Saudi Arabia as the custodian of the two holy mosques. That creates a unique convening power which allows Saudi Arabia to bring together people who do not particularly want to sit in a room together and force them to engage with each other. Frankly, in a storm we need to work with partners who have the capabilities that we need, and Saudi Arabia has that capability.

Chris Green: Syria needs political stability so, although we may have to deal with the Assad regime in the short term, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Assad regime cannot be part of the long-term solution, even if other regional partners support his continued dictatorship?

Philip Hammond: Yes, as I have already said, our position is that for both moral and practical purposes we will not get a solution that involves Assad as a long-term part of the political structure in Syria.

Imran Hussain: I welcome the early reporting on this subject, which is very important to many in the House. I welcome all the political and diplomatic efforts that the Government are clearly undertaking, and I agree that in those diplomatic efforts the involvement of Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world is crucial. There are two points that we have to acknowledge, the first being that many of those Muslim countries themselves are under attack from Daesh or other terrorists. Secondly, many Muslims across those countries in the Muslim world do not acknowledge the Daesh ideology as being anywhere near Islam, and we have to stress that point. I urge the Government to continue those conversations, because if Daesh is to be defeated properly, we must defeat not only the body known as Daesh, but the evil ideology. That is where Muslim world co-operation will be necessary. On the important issue of civilian deaths, tens of thousands of civilians lost their lives in Iraq and in Afghanistan. What assurances can the Foreign Secretary give me that the same will not happen in Syria?

Philip Hammond: Hundreds of thousands have lost their lives in Syria and people are continuing to lose their lives in Syria, both as a result of Daesh’s systematic murder and as a result of Assad’s indiscriminate barrel bombing and chemical attacks on civilian populations, so I am afraid I can give the hon. Gentleman no assurance whatsoever that we will not see similar levels of casualties in Syria. The only way we can seek to prevent them is to bring the bloody civil war to an end and then bring the rule of Daesh over a third of Syria’s territory to an end as quickly as possible.
	On the first part of his question, the hon. Gentleman is right. This group of 34 countries is, of course, committed to the challenge of defeating Daesh in Iraq and Syria, but it is at its heart a self-help group—34 countries coming together, recognising that any one of them can be attacked by Daesh or Daesh-affiliated groups, and allowing them to call on each other to provide mutual assistance in responding to such an attack. Of course the hon. Gentleman is right that we have to destroy not only the manifestations of this organisation, but the underpinning ideology. That will be a much longer task and I do not expect it to be completed in my lifetime.

Stephen Metcalfe: I am pleased that we are finally targeting the oilfields in an attempt to cut off Daesh’s illicit funds, but can my right hon. Friend tell the House why it is only now that we have joined the coalition for airstrikes that we are hitting these oilfields and trying to cut off that source of income? Are there any other places that we should be hitting which form a greater part of our overall strategy?

Philip Hammond: Maybe I missed something in my hon. Friend’s question. The simple answer is that it is because they are in Syria and until 14 days ago we were not authorised to strike at targets in Syria. A crucial part of our argument was that we needed to take the fight to Daesh in Syria—its command and control headquarters, its supply lines and its sources of economic support.

Brendan O'Hara: In the debate just two weeks ago we were told that Daesh in Raqqa represented the head of the snake, and that Daesh posed a real and imminent threat to the security of the United Kingdom. Given that, can the Foreign Secretary tell us what action has been taken by the RAF to diminish Daesh in Raqqa? If no action has been taken by the RAF in Raqqa, why not?

Philip Hammond: As I made clear earlier, I cannot talk about individual targets and individual attacks. The hon. Gentleman is right. That focus in the debate was on the command and control headquarters in Raqqa and that has to be the target if we are to destroy Daesh, but we have to go about that deliberately. Rushing to strike Daesh in its headquarters is not necessarily the best way to go about the task. I am not a military strategist and I do not think it would be sensible for politicians, least of all in open session, to try to set the military plan. What I do know is that targeting the leadership of Daesh in a heavily populated city such as Raqqa will require extremely careful planning, the acquisition of a great deal of intelligence and surveillance data, and the proper analysis of those data.

Michael Tomlinson: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s continued commitment to a political solution and to further peace talks, but does he agree that it is important to include and involve as wide a range of countries as possible, including Iran, in order to ensure that all parties get round the table in Syria?

Philip Hammond: Yes, and one of the great achievements of the Vienna process is that Iran, along with Saudi Arabia, is engaged, so two countries that have not been conspicuous by their ability to talk each other are now talking to each other across a table in Vienna or this week in New York. That is a positive achievement.

Andrew Slaughter: I hear what the Foreign Secretary says about civilian casualties, but the effect of bombing—any bombing—is to maintain the flow of refugees, including into Europe. What are the Government doing to get the UNHCR into camps from Lesbos to Calais? Will they offer refugee status to refugees in those camps whose primary family connection is with Britain?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman has asked a specific and detailed question. I would be chancing my arm to give him a precise answer. If I may, I will write to him and place a copy of my letter in the Library. I will want to talk to my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the International Development Secretary before answering.

Martin Docherty: This week the Financial Times reported that even in Daesh-controlled Syria and Iraq two certainties of life exist: death and taxes. Given that the collection of the zakat is now reported to equal the sale of oil revenue, what impact are our airstrikes having on Daesh’s continued worrying economic growth, which has been built on the backs of the rural poor of Iraq and Syria?

Philip Hammond: I suspect that those two eternal inevitabilities, death and taxes, are rather more immediately unavoidable in Daesh-controlled territory than they are in most other places. There are some signals—this was set out in the debate two weeks ago—that Daesh is facing some financial stress. Stipends paid to fighters have been cut. There are many reports of fighters being unpaid and payments to fighters being delayed. This is still a very well-funded organisation, but the huge one-off bonanza that it acquired in the early days of its surge into Iraq, where it was capturing hundreds of millions of dollars in cash in banks and simply taking it away, has ended. I think it is facing a little more pressure financially than it was then, and we intend to keep tightening the screw.

Clive Efford: Will the Secretary of State say more about what is being done in relation to the position of the Iraqi Government on the Sunni community, who are a mainstay of Daesh in that area and are enabling it to run an effective economy and to pay wages to civil servants, soldiers and others because of the technical expertise of many of the people who have gone from Iraq into the area? If we are going to deal with Daesh in the long run, what pressure can be put on the Iraqi Government to deal with that fundamental problem?

Philip Hammond: We are working very closely with the Iraqi Government, and we are supporting Prime Minister al-Abadi, who remains committed to the programme of outreach to the Sunni community in Iraq but is facing significant challenges in delivering it. His immediate predecessor is opposed, and a significant bloc in Parliament is making it impossible to progress with two key pieces of legislation: on the creation of a national guard, which would see regionally based forces composed of groups that reflected the ethnicity and the confessional allegiance of the regions; and on repealing the de-Ba’athification legislation passed in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime, which has driven many capable Iraqis who were associated with the Ba’ath regime into the arms of ISIL. Many of the military brains behind ISIL’s initial success were former Ba’athist military officials from the Iraqi regime.

Stuart Donaldson: If use of the Brimstone missile was such a key part of the Government’s argument for extending the bombing campaign to Syria, does the Secretary of State not think he should inform the House of how many Brimstone missiles have been used in operations over Syria, and will he commit to doing so in future statements?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces tells me that there is a certain amount of operational information available on the gov.uk website on a daily basis, and the hon. Gentleman may find information there that at least partly answers his question.

Andrew Gwynne: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox), the Foreign Secretary set out the complexities of establishing a civilian safe haven on the ground in Syria. Notwithstanding that, given the intensification of the civil war and our own battles against Daesh, will he enter into dialogue with Syria’s neighbours to see whether they or the Islamic military coalition that he described would be willing to provide the ground support that is needed to create that safe haven for civilians?

Philip Hammond: I regularly talk to my Turkish colleagues, in particular. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Turks have long promoted the idea of creating safe havens in the north along the border with Turkey. However, all such previous proposals have foundered on the question of who will provide the defensive air cover, given the presence of a very sophisticated Syrian air defence system, and now the presence of Russian air-to-air offensive capability in the area.

Peter Grant: The MOD has confirmed that the RAF Typhoons operating in Syria have, on occasion, not only carried air-to-surface missiles for attacking targets on the ground but have been armed with air-to-air missiles designed to shoot down enemy aircraft. The Government have said that the only enemy we have in Syria is Daesh. There is no indication whatsoever that Daesh has any aircraft. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us which specific countries’ aircraft the RAF thinks it might have to shoot down in the skies over Syria?

Philip Hammond: The posture that we adopt to protect our aircraft is a matter of operational security and I cannot comment on it in the House.

Stewart McDonald: Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), is not the reason we have not attacked Raqqa, the so-called head of the snake, that, as I have said, the snake is instead a hydra? We read in the weekend papers that the Government are now giving serious consideration to stretching their operation against Daesh into Libya, which will inevitably lead to our doing so in other parts of the region and in north Africa. We have a plan to attack Daesh, not a plan to defeat it. When will the Foreign Secretary get round to giving us a proper plan for dealing with the problem in the context in which it actually exists?

Philip Hammond: First, I would say to the hon. Gentleman, do not believe everything you read in the papers, especially at the weekends. As I have said before, this is a complex military task that requires careful planning and careful execution. I am sorry if it does not suit him that we have a debate and 14 days later he has not seen the level of attack in a particular spot that he, as a military strategist, would like to see, but I have to defer to the military strategists in the Ministry of Defence and in the combined air operations centres and let them execute the objectives that this House has clearly endorsed.

Stephen Gethins: The Foreign Secretary was right to highlight the importance of Syria’s neighbours, particularly Arab states. I am sure that he will be aware of this comment by the US Defence Secretary:
	“Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states joined the air campaign in the early days but have since been preoccupied by the conflict in Yemen.”
	Is he concerned by that, and has there been a decrease in sorties by Arab allies?

Philip Hammond: Yes, there has been a decrease in air sorties by Arab allies. Of course, we recognise the challenges of the conflict on their southern border. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear, and I am sure the House will be pleased to hear, that talks are currently going on between the two sides in the Yemeni civil war. A ceasefire of sorts has been in place over the past couple of days, and although there have been violations, I understand that it is broadly holding. We are therefore hopeful that we are seeing the beginning of the end of the military phase of the conflict in Yemen.

Steven Paterson: In his previous statement the Prime Minister mentioned the memorandum of understanding regarding communication between the coalition and Russia, which is hugely important. We need only look at the shooting down of a Russian jet by Turkey to see how crucial it is that those communications are going on daily at an operational level. The House has heard loud and clear about the difficulties in dealing diplomatically with Russia, and we must continue to endeavour to be more successful in doing that. How well is the memorandum of understanding working, given that it is for the safety of our troops as well as Russia’s that it is working?

Philip Hammond: This is about de-confliction. It is about ensuring that we are not flying our aircraft in the same bit of airspace where, inadvertently or by accident, they might come into conflict with others. That has been working well. In fact, coalition aircraft and Russian aircraft are generally operating in different areas. Of course, the situation with regard to Turkey is different. The Turkish aircraft in question in the incident that the hon. Gentleman refers to, which tragically led to the death of a Russian lieutenant colonel, the pilot, were defending Turkish airspace. It was a routine air defence patrol of the type that we fly in the UK, and we would be in the same position if our airspace was threatened or challenged. The de-confliction of airspace for operations between the coalition and Russia is working well, but the conflict—the tension—remains along the border, where Turkish aircraft are flying in their airspace and Russian aircraft are flying in Syrian airspace. We are all extremely keen to see any risks in that area de-escalating, and we are working hard to achieve that.

Patrick Grady: The Foreign Secretary says that a minimum of £1 billion has been put aside for reconstruction. Is that a blank cheque, and, if so, what alternatives is it at the expense of? What needs analysis is that figure based on? What plans exist for spending it, and over what timescale?

Philip Hammond: I do not think it is a blank cheque: it says on the top line, “People of Syria”, and on the next line, “£1 billion”, so it is clearly not a blank cheque. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we are going to remain committed to the Syrian people through this conflict, through the formation of a transitional Government and in the rebuilding of their country after the creation of that transitional Government and the end of the conflict. He made it very clear in the debate two weeks ago that £1 billion is not the limit of our support for the Syrian people; it is a first instalment to which we have committed.

Points of Order

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Speaker: A veritable feast of points of order.

Tom Brake: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am starting to panic. You will recall that on 2 December the Prime Minister, in response to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, said:
	“I am very happy to look at that issue again”—
	the issue being the 3,000 unaccompanied children—
	“to see whether Britain can do more to fulfil our moral responsibilities.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 339.]
	The Prime Minister has been silent on the matter ever since. Can you, Mr Speaker, clarify whether the rules of the House require, when matters of moral responsibility are in play, the Prime Minister to return to this Chamber urgently to set out how he intends to fulfil those moral responsibilities?

Mr Speaker: The matter that the right hon. Gentleman raises is certainly important, but I am bound to tell him that it is treated of neither in “Erskine May”, which, of course, is the bible of parliamentary precedent and procedure, nor in Standing Orders. Therefore, although it may seem imperative in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman and, indeed, in that of his leader that the Prime Minister should return to the House to satisfy them on this matter before the Christmas recess, there is no procedural imperative to that effect.

Tom Brake: Shame.

Mr Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman mutters “Shame” from a sedentary position, and I feel sure that it is a matter to which he will return, quite possibly before the Christmas recess. We shall wait to see.

Greg Mulholland: rose—

Hannah Bardell: rose—

Mr Speaker: I think we shall have a change of party for a moment, but we will return to the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland).

Hannah Bardell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is my first point of order, just in time for Christmas. On a very serious point, it has come to my attention recently that the Department for Work and Pensions plans to operate “business as usual”, as it did for the first time last year, in the run-up to Christmas. That basically means that people will be sanctioned up until and on Christmas eve. How can I hold the Secretary of State to account on this matter and have it dealt with, hopefully positively, so that we do not have a Scrooge-like approach in the run-up to Christmas?

Mr Speaker: I think the hon. Lady has just done it, although there is one further parliamentary day. Of course, the scheduled debates for tomorrow are what they are and I am not at all sure that either of them would facilitate her in that respect, but there are other opportunities on every parliamentary day and she will have to use her ingenuity, which is not inconsiderable, to see if she can refer to the matter again and extract some sort of ministerial response in the Chamber.

Greg Mulholland: rose—

Patrick Grady: rose—

Mr Speaker: I think the hon. Member for Leeds North West is going to think he is always left until last if I do not call him now. Members do develop persecution complexes from time to time. We will come to the hon. Gentleman, who is a hardy fellow and will not mind waiting.

Patrick Grady: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The last question at today’s Department for International Development Question Time was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). It concerned a very serious matter regarding reports that two men from Malawi—Cuthbert Kulemela and Kelvin Gonani—have been arrested in the capital city for having consensual sex together. Essentially, it appears that they have been arrested for being gay. This is probably as much of an issue for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as it is for DFID, so I am glad that there are FCO Ministers present. I hope the Government will respond in the same way as the Secretary of State for International Development did by condemning the action.
	My point of order is that the question asked by my hon. Friend could barely be heard because of the noise that always rises in the prelude to Prime Minister’s questions. What advice can you give to Members, Mr Speaker, about noise levels during Question Time, and what opportunities are there for us to ask the Government to look at rotating the questions and when they are heard?

Mr Speaker: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The news that he reports on a very serious matter is, frankly, horrifying—it is absolutely horrifying news indeed. Of course, there is a direct locus for the Secretary of State and the Department for International Development in view of our continuing commitment to Malawi, with which country I know the hon. Gentleman, from his personal experience, is intensely familiar, so, I think probably on behalf of the House, I can empathise with what he has said.
	The noise at Question Time is very disturbing. I do often say to the House that we are dealing with extremely important matters. In some cases they are important matters not only from our point of view, but to people elsewhere in the world who are in very much more vulnerable situations than we are, so common courtesy would dictate that there should be a civilised atmosphere and that questions and answers should be heard. The hon. Gentleman knows, to be fair, that it is ordinarily not a calculated insult; it is that colleagues are very excited and animated about the upcoming Prime Minister’s questions and are engaging in often protracted and noisy private conversations. I can only exhort colleagues to remember their responsibilities to each other and to people whose concerns we are discussing.
	More widely, the hon. Gentleman makes quite an important point about possible rotation. There is no procedural bar to rotation. If there is a significant body of Members who feel that it is wrong that one Department should have to occupy that very difficult slot for an extended period, they can make representations—I am trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman; I cannot solve the problem overnight—to the Leader of the House and, indeed, if I may say so, to the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who is, in my experience, unfailingly helpful to, and courteous in his dealings with, Members of the House.

Greg Mulholland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not at all mind waiting to seek your advice or to share some very good news. I know that you will be delighted, as will the House, with today’s news that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has approved the drug Vimizim for sufferers of Morquio disease. That is life-changing news for the 88 people and their families, and it is the result of a large campaign.
	I seek your advice, Mr Speaker, because this is a hugely important matter that has exercised considerable time and a number of questions in this House. Given that there will be no pre-recess Adjournment debate tomorrow, and given the very limited time available for a statement from the Department of Health—which would be very welcome, particularly because it is such good news—I seek your advice on how the issue might be raised in the time remaining to us, considering not only its importance, but the importance of the ultra-rare diseases that have not received this news, such as tuberous sclerosis and Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Mr Speaker: There are two points in response to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. First, I am absolutely delighted to hear that excellent news. Although the hon. Gentleman was too modest to draw direct attention to his own work on the subject, I think Members across the whole House know just how indefatigable he has been in his efforts on behalf of those very vulnerable people, so I would like to congratulate him and other Members on their persistence. It is absolutely magnificent news. We are here to serve other people and this is a very good example of where that has been done, not least due to the prodigious efforts of Back Benchers such as himself and a number of his colleagues.
	Secondly, there is every opportunity for statements to be made tomorrow. Ministers will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. Whether a Minister wishes to come to announce and elaborate on the good news, and potentially to answer queries about other categories of people who might also be helped, I do not know. The hon. Gentleman also knows that, whether or not a statement is offered, there is an opportunity for Members to submit urgent questions. The hon. Gentleman has done it many times himself, sometimes with success. I cannot possibly give a commitment in advance, because we do not deal with the matter in that way. One thing the hon. Gentleman knows is that if he does not extract a commitment by a Minister to make an oral statement tomorrow and he chooses to submit an urgent question, I will see that question and read it in full, and it will be considered and adjudicated on at the morning meeting at 8.45 am tomorrow. I hope that that is helpful to him and, indeed, to other Members of the House.

Ben Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In that context, have you received any indication from the Government that a Minister intends to make a statement tomorrow about the outcome of their consultation on cutting the solar feed-in tariff, which I understand they will announce tomorrow. This is a matter of huge public and industrial concern, with 37,000 jobs—87% of the jobs in the solar industry—at risk if the Government do not change their proposals. It would be completely unacceptable for this announcement to be sneaked out on the last sitting Thursday before Christmas when, with a one-line Whip, many Members will not be in Parliament. I hope that you will take up that matter with the Government on our behalf.

Mr Speaker: I am not aware of any intention on the part of a Minister to make a statement on that subject tomorrow, although I must say to the right hon. Gentleman, who is extremely experienced in the House, that the fact that I am not aware of any such intention at this point is itself unexceptional. There is no particular reason why I would have been notified. I have not been notified, but that does not mean that the Government are not planning to make a statement. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, that is little comfort to him. There might be an oral statement or there might not be. It is perfectly possible that there might be a written statement, which I suspect would satisfy him even less.
	I cannot do anything about the point we have reached in the timetable. Tomorrow is the last day and some Members may not be present. That is unfortunate, but I can do nothing about it. However, just as I said to the hon. Member for Leeds North West that there is the opportunity of an urgent question for him and for other Members on matters of concern to them, it is perfectly open to the right hon. Gentleman to submit an urgent question. I simply inform colleagues that on a Thursday such applications must be in by 8.15 am. I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman are both eager beavers and early birds.
	If there are no further points of order—the appetite has been satisfied, at least for today—we come now to the ten-minute rule motion, for which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) has been so patiently waiting.

Representation of the People (Proportional Representation) (House of Commons)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Jonathan Reynolds: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Acts to provide for the introduction of proportional representation as a method for electing a certain number of Members of the House of Commons; to make provision about changing existing constituencies and reducing their number; and for connected purposes.
	It is said that in 1830, the Duke of Wellington, as Prime Minister, declared himself opposed to any reform of Parliament on the basis that the state of the representation of the people had been designed by providence and therefore “cannot be improved”. He was of course deeply wrong, as just two years later the Great Reform Act of 1832 was passed. However, that attitude—that the means of representing the people at Westminster cannot be improved—is one that has lived on and remains strong to this day. Indeed, many Members of the House can find no reason to question a system that has had the infinite wisdom to elect each and every one of us who sits in the House today.
	I put it to the House that the means of electing the House of Commons—namely, the first-past-the-post electoral system—is no longer fit for purpose. It has led to a narrow and unrepresentative politics, increasingly poor decision making, poorly conducted elections and, at times, poor government. Moreover, it now threatens the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom and the cohesion of the constituent nations of the UK, by failing to produce representation that truly reflects the diversity of political views contained therein.
	My Bill, which is modestly entitled a representation of the people Bill, seeks to correct these failings by introducing for the House of Commons the same electoral system used in Scotland and Wales, and in Germany—the additional member system. I believe that that system delivers the best of both worlds: a local MP with a constituency link, and a representative election that successfully reflects the intentions of the electorate. There would still be constituency MPs, but there would also be representative elections. There would still be strong one-party Governments if the public wanted them, but not if they did not.
	I will set out why I believe the change to be so desirable. I believe our current voting system is bad for politics in the UK. It forces the major parties to devote their resources overwhelmingly to just a handful of constituencies that they regard as swing or marginal seats. Doing so fails to treat voters equally, regardless of where they live, which creates a two-tier system of political engagement. As we all know, in some parts of the country the opposition parties put up nothing more than a token effort at election time. Most worryingly, it creates false electoral deserts, where whole regions of the country are dominated by one party despite its opponents recording substantial numbers of votes.
	First past the post has been a huge contributing factor in how remote people feel from politics. As vote share for the major two parties has declined, it is a fact that our general elections have become less and less representative. If winning an argument with the British public becomes a different task from that of winning the votes required to form a Government, something has gone terribly wrong. It should be a source of national concern that there have been three general elections in history in which the party with the most votes has actually lost the general election. If that were to happen in the modern day, we would legitimately face a constitutional crisis.
	I wish to stress that none of this is a means to dispute the formation of the new Conservative Government. No electoral system would have produced a Labour Government in 2015, because people simply did not trust Labour sufficiently. However, the result of the last election should concern anyone with an interest in democracy, or simply a desire for national unity. In the south-east, the Tories got 51% of the vote, but took 93% of the seats. In the south-west, they got 47% of the vote, but took 94% of the seats. In the north-east, the situation was reversed: Labour took 47% of the vote, but won 90% of the MPs. In Scotland, the SNP won an impressive 50% of the vote, but a thoroughly disproportionate 95% of the seats. The Lib Dems actually got 1 million more votes than the SNP, but are treated as though they got less. Four million people voted for the UK Independence party to get just one MP. That is simply not conducive to a representative Parliament.
	As much as I wish the whole country would simply elect Labour MPs like me, if they do not do so, they should—as best we can deliver—get the MPs they did vote for. Moreover, the electoral system should not write off large parts of the country to one party or another, because that forces those parties to behave rationally and devote their scarce resources to areas where they are competitive. That then creates a perpetual cycle of disengagement, rather than the challenging and robust competition of views on which democracy thrives.
	Because of the unrepresentative nature of modern elections, the Governments that are formed after them are prone to make poor decisions or to govern inequitably. At times, the British people have given a clear, decisive mandate for change—1905, 1945, 1979 and 1997—but that has not been their verdict at other times, when they have been unwilling or reluctant to hand one party exclusive access to Downing Street. If that is the British people’s verdict, there should be coalition or minority Governments. Using the electoral system to create an artificial mandate for one-party rule is not conducive to good government. The argument that proportional voting unfairly empowers smaller parties does not stand up when one considers that exactly the same charge could be levelled at the recent functioning of first past the post, be that the coalition Government in the last Parliament, the Lib-Lab pact in the 1970s, Sir John Major’s deal with the Democratic Unionist party, or the historical example of the Irish nationalists. The status quo does of course produce absurdities. During the last Parliament, a coalition Government in Westminster were elected under first past the post, and a one-party majority Government were elected in Holyrood under the proportional system that I am proposing we introduce via this Bill.
	I know that some people will say to me that they do not wish to change the voting system for fear of seeing more UKIP or other minority parties elected. I share their disdain for some of those parties, but I would say to them that if people vote for those parties, that is surely what they should get. Parties defeat their political opponents by debate and campaigning, not by rigging the rules in their favour. Ultimately, the alienation caused by rigging the rules in their favour will create the resentment that means those minority parties actually win under first past the post, as we saw just over a decade ago when the British National party won substantial numbers of council seats in the north-west.
	I may be this Parliament’s pre-eminent Jonny, but I am no Jonny-come-lately to this cause. In fact, I am prepared to admit to the House that, as a young man, I travelled the long journey from Sunderland all the way to Newcastle to hear the late Roy Jenkins address a public meeting as part of his Jenkins commission. However, I believe that the issue has now assumed a much greater urgency. That has been produced not just by the declining vote share of the two major parties, but by the consequences of further constitutional change in Scotland, be it in the form of independence, as the SNP would like, or the much greater devolution that the Unionist parties favour. Such developments have profound implications for the rest of the Union.
	I do not believe that the cohesion of England can be maintained by retaining the first-past-the-post electoral system. In all honesty, Labour Members ignored the consequences of devolution for England for far too long, simply because we did not want to admit that, under first past the post, Labour has historically rarely won a majority in England alone. A fairer and more competitive system would be better for everyone, because it would render such narrow calculations redundant and create a one nation political system for a country that sorely needs it.
	I am extremely grateful for the cross-party support I have achieved for the Bill, which includes support from hon. Members from political parties, such as the Greens and the Lib Dems, that have positions in favour of a different type of electoral reform, such as the single transferable vote. However, we are as one on the need for change. If there is one thing that my time as a Member of this House has genuinely taught me, it is that the stereotypes of different political parties and the people who represent them in this place are unhelpful and unfair. The basis exists for us all to work together in the national interest and it would be better if we were part of a political system that placed on us an obligation to do so. Therefore, I make a plea today for not just a proportional voting system, but a patriotic voting system, in which all parts of the country and all shades of opinion are treated equally and fairly, and the functioning of which brings the whole country together. I commend the Bill to the House.

John Spellar: I am slightly surprised to be congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—and he is a friend—on his honesty in admitting that he once sat at the feet of Roy Jenkins. That is not something to which people are normally prepared to admit.
	I find it astonishing that, in a month when the Front National in France has made considerable advances, someone in this House should argue for changing the electoral system. I do not want to detain the House for too long, so I will not go into detail about how damaging this proposal would be to effective government; how it would transfer power away from constituents and local parties to party leaders, kitchen Cabinets and bureaucrats; how it would empower fringe parties at the expense of parties that are fit for government; how it would damage the direct link between many MPs and a constituency; and how, interestingly enough, countries that have such systems always have to amend them as those problems start to come through.

Stephen Twigg: Germany?

John Spellar: Germany has changed the system. It has introduced thresholds and it regularly changes the thresholds to deal with exactly the problems I am describing.
	The proposal flies in the face of British public opinion, which was made absolutely clear in the referendum by more than two to one. In fact, 68% of people voted no and 32% voted yes. Of the 440 counting areas, only 10 recorded yes votes: the inner-London boroughs of Lambeth, Southwark, Camden, Hackney, Haringey and Islington—all those boroughs that used to feature in national headlines in the days of the loony left councils; Oxford, which has a great university and was described once as the city of lost causes; Cambridge; and Edinburgh Central and Glasgow Kelvin, which I think—SNP colleagues will correct me if I am wrong—are the seats of the universities in those two cities. Interestingly, in the seat of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, the borough of Tameside voted more than two to one against, with 72% against and 28% for. To my chagrin, that was a bigger margin than in my borough of Sandwell, which managed a mere 71% against to 29% for.
	I merely ask those who are considering voting for this proposition a simple question: what part of “no” is it that you don’t understand?

Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
	The House divided:
	Ayes 27, Noes 164.

Question accordingly negatived.

Natascha Engel: I have now to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to petroleum. The Ayes were 298 and the Noes were 261, so the Question was agreed to.
	[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Armed Forces Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Ordered,
	That the Order of 15 October 2015 (Armed Forces Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	(1) Paragraphs (4), (5) and (6) of the Order shall be omitted.
	(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House on re-committal shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion, at today’s sitting, three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.
	(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in one day in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
	(4) Any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement on that day.
	(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on that day.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Armed Forces Bill

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill on 18 November 2015, HC 618, and Proceedings of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill on 24 November 2015.]
	Considered in Committee

[Mr Peter Bone in the Chair]

Clause 1
	 — 
	Duration of Armed Forces Act 2006

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Lancaster: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.
	The primary purpose of the Bill is to provide for the continuation in force of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which would otherwise expire at the end of 2016. Clause 1 provides for continuation of that Act for a year from the date on which the Bill receives Royal Assent. Thereafter it allows further renewal by Order in Council for up to a year at a time, but not beyond the end of 2021.
	The 2006 Act provides nearly all the provisions for an armed forces system of command, discipline and justice. Crucially, it confers powers and sets out procedures to enforce the duty of members of the armed forces to obey lawful commands. The central effect of the expiry of the 2006 Act would be to end the powers and provisions to maintain the armed forces as disciplined bodies.

Kevan Jones: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.
	I think this is my third Armed Forces Bill, and it is a minnow compared, for example, with the 2006 Act. However, it covers important issues that affect not only the operation of Her Majesty’s armed forces, but the discipline needed to ensure their effectiveness. As the Minister has outlined, it is an important constitutional Bill because it reaffirms the need for a standing Army to protect the freedoms that we have all come to rely on in this country. I look forward to the progress of the Bill and of the amendments in my name.

Kirsten Oswald: The SNP fully supports the Bill. We appreciate the requirement that Parliament’s consent is given to maintain an Army, as well as the significant contribution made by members of our armed forces. As such, one of the Bill’s most important functions is to provide the legal basis for the armed forces to continue to exist as a disciplined force, and we must continue to develop and support our armed forces as they undertake their difficult jobs. We support progressive change such as that found in the amendment that calls for a review into compensation for veterans who are suffering from mesothelioma, and that on the publication of statistics on sexual assault and rape. We want robust legislation that is fit for our dedicated armed forces.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Commanding officer’s power to require preliminary alcohol and drugs tests

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Lancaster: Currently, a commanding officer may only require a member of the armed forces, or a civilian subject to service discipline, to co-operate with a preliminary test for drugs or alcohol on suspicion of a relevant offence. Clause 2 extends the circumstances in which a commanding officer may require co-operation with such a test. It provides for post-accident preliminary testing without the need for suspicion that the person to be tested may have committed an offence. The new powers to require co-operation with such tests apply only after accidents involving aircraft or ships, or after other serious accidents.
	The powers will apply in the event of any maritime or aviation accident and other serious accidents that result in, or have created the risk of death, serious injury to any person, serious damage to any property, or serious environmental harm involving prescribed or other safety critical functions. The results of preliminary tests can be used in support of any type of investigation arising from the accident. The new powers are similar to those provided to the civilian police by the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 in relation to aviation and maritime accidents, and the Road Traffic Act 1998 in relation to road traffic accidents, but apply to a wider range of accidents.

Kevan Jones: We support clause 2. As the Minister has outlined, it brings into line the legislation that covers our armed forces and gives commanding officers the tools to investigate accidents in which drugs or alcohol may have played a part.

Kirsten Oswald: It is appropriate to enable commanding officers to require testing for drugs and/or alcohol after incidents associated with personnel carrying out safety critical duties. We support the ability of the commanding officer to deal with these matters. It is for them to consider and to proceed with the most appropriate action in relation to the requirement for testing.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3
	 — 
	Duty of service policeman following investigation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Peter Bone: With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 4 and 5.

Mark Lancaster: Clauses 3 to 5 relate to investigations and charging. They make a number of changes to provisions in part 5 of the 2006 Act, which deal with the process of deciding whether a person is to be charged with a service offence under that Act. The changes simplify the process. For example, currently some cases that cannot be dealt with by the commanding officer must none the less be referred by the investigating service police to the commanding officer and then from the CO to the Director of Service Prosecutions for a decision on the charge and prosecution.
	Clause 3 provides that where the service policy consider there is sufficient evidence to charge an offence that the commanding officer cannot try summarily, the case must be sent to the Service Prosecuting Authority for a decision on charging. The Director of Service Prosecutions is responsible for decisions on the charge and prosecution in all cases that cannot be dealt with by the commanding officer. However, currently some of those cases have to be referred by the investigating service police to the commanding officer, and then, as I have said, from the commanding officer to the Director of Service Prosecutions. This adds unnecessary delay and bureaucracy to the process, which the clause seeks to remove.
	The other main change made by clause 3 intends to deal with the problem that the 2006 Act currently requires some cases to be sent to a commanding officer to deal with, although they are closely connected with a case that must be sent to the director, for example where separate offences occurred during the same incident. This can result in separate decisions on whether to prosecute, and separate trials. Clause 3 amends the 2006 Act so that the service police will also be able to refer a case to the Director of Service Prosecutions if, after consultation with the director, they consider it appropriate to do so because of a connection with another case that has been referred to the director.
	Clause 4 makes a minor technical clarification to the procedure for the referral of linked cases from the commanding officer to the Director of Service Prosecutions. Currently, if the commanding officer is required to transfer a linked case to the director, the transfer is deemed to take place. Under clause 4, the commanding officer will actually have to make the transfer.
	Clause 5 provides for the Director of Service Prosecutions to bring charges himself. Currently, where the director decides that a charge should be brought in a case, he cannot bring the charge directly but must direct the suspect’s commanding officer to bring the charge, and the commanding officer must then bring the charge.
	The changes have the support of the Director of Service Prosecutions and the Judge Advocate General. No change is proposed to the circumstances in which the commanding officer is under duty to ensure that the service police are aware of an allegation.

Peter Bone: Just to clarify, we are debating clauses 3, 4 and 5 together if any Member wants to speak on them.

Jim Shannon: Thank you, Mr Bone, for clarifying the process. I have put this all together, if the Minister could just bear with me.
	The Minister referred to investigation and charging in relation to clauses 3 to 5 and I just wanted to ask a question about that. We see a simplification of the process relating to service personnel charged with offences. I assume the Minister is saying that that will be achieved by reducing the number of stages required for the decision to bring charges. Not only will the provision make it easier to bring charges where appropriate, and ensure discipline and order are maintained in our armed forces, it will streamline the process and reduce bureaucracy so that commanding officers are free to go about other duties essential to the smooth running of all aspects of our armed services. Will the Minister clarify the role of the commanding officer in an investigation?
	If the Minister will bear with me, clause 2 related to alcohol and drugs. As we are talking about investigation, I want to comment on that. The new rules on drug and alcohol testing are similar, but not identical, to the provisions under the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. The 2003 Act provides for an alcohol and drug testing regime that is applicable to both the maritime and aviation environments, but the armed forces have Crown exemption. Will the Minister clarify this matter in relation to the new rules on drug and alcohol testing and investigations?
	The Bill will remedy that and strengthen the approach to alcohol or drug misuse within the armed forces, as well as being more specific about what grounds justify a drug or alcohol test. It will make it easier for those in charge of an investigation to order a drug or alcohol test when needed, which is something that can only make our armed forces safer and more secure, while simplifying the process to make it easier for commanding officers to secure a drug or alcohol test.
	The new statutory framework for immunity from prosecution will give the Director of Service Prosecutions and service courts powers that may assist investigators and prosecutors in cases where it may otherwise be difficult to persuade service personnel to co-operate with the service police and to give evidence. The Minister will be aware of a specific case in Northern Ireland where investigations are ongoing. I believe the provisions are a positive development that will improve transparency across our armed forces and improve the security of individuals. Of course, this could be particularly important to Northern Ireland where there have been continuous attempts, through spurious allegations, to drag the names of former soldiers through the mud. We must never let the legitimate forces of law and order be equated with cold-blooded murderous terrorists. I hope that this aspect of the Bill can ensure that the brave service personnel who fought terrorism in Northern Ireland will never be dragged through the courts by those who terrorised our state, or by their sympathisers and supporters. On investigation and prosecution in relation to this particular issue, what role will the Minister play? I am sure we are keen to put in place a transparent method of investigation and prosecution. There has to be protection for our brave service personnel. Where we can, we should give them immunity, but we must always give them our full and unreserved legal support and aid, should they need it.
	I hope that was clear for the Minister. I have raised several issues about investigation that have to be addressed.

Peter Bone: Because it is coming towards Christmas, we let the hon. Gentleman go back slightly to clause 2. [Hon. Members: “And forward!”]. And forward, yes. But we have been moving rapidly, and he was seeking advice as he went.

Kevan Jones: Thank you, Mr Bone. I will aim not to go backwards or forwards.
	We support these common sense and proportionate clauses. As the 2006 Act beds in, they will improve the investigation and charging system by making it as efficient as possible.

Mark Lancaster: Thank you, Mr Bone, for allowing me to go back, very briefly, to clause 2.
	The new powers in clause 2 reflect the range of duties undertaken in the military environment—for example, diving, driving and commanding a mechanically propelled vehicle—not covered by road transport legislation. The use of firearms would not be covered either, and neither would other duties considered to be safety critical, such as running adventurous training. So there are some extra duties not covered by other legislation, which is why these provisions go slightly further.
	On clause 3 and the question of whether we are effectively reducing the powers of the CO, the change to the procedure followed by the service police after an investigation relates only to cases where the CO does not have jurisdiction over the recommended charge. Such a case could still be referred back to the CO by the Director of Service Prosecutions if an alternative charge within his powers was considered appropriate. The uncertain power of the CO to wait and see and do nothing will be removed, but it is, in any event, vulnerable to attack, particularly given that it applies to serious cases in relation to which the service police have determined there is sufficient evidence to charge an individual with an offence that can be tried only by court martial. The change to the process of charging means that the DSP will have the power to bring a charge, whereas currently only the CO has the power, although he might be directed by the DSP to do it. I realise it sounds complicated, but actually it simplifies the process to avoid having to refer cases to the CO over which he has no power anyway. In more than 90% of cases, the CO will still be involved.
	I am sure that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will remain in his place for the duration of the Committee, so I will deal with the other points he raised when we get to those clauses.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6
	 — 
	Period for which sentence of service detention may be suspended

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Lancaster: The clause increases from 12 to 24 months the maximum period for which the sentence of service detention may be suspended by a court martial. The civilian courts and courts martial can already suspend sentences of imprisonment for up to 24 months, but service detention is a unique military system offering greater rehabilitation arrangements. This measure would provide a court martial with greater flexibility in appropriate circumstances. Guidance on sentencing in a court martial sets out the relevant factors for the award of suspended sentences: whether the offender can retrieve his or her good name without undergoing a committed sentence—for example, if there has been a significant delay between the offence and trial, during which period the offender has performed
	his or her duties well and effectively rehabilitated him or herself; whether the offender has shown genuine remorse and voluntarily made reparation for any damage caused; whether the offender is young and inexperienced and it is clear that the offence is an isolated occurrence; whether the offence does not involve serious violence or violence towards a superior officer; and whether the offender is required for more important operational duties.

Kevan Jones: Again, I think these are sensible proposals that give courts martial the flexibility to award suspended sentences where appropriate. It is a tidying-up exercise in terms of the 2006 Act.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7
	 — 
	Immunity from prosecution

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Peter Bone: With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 8 to 12 stand part.

Mark Lancaster: Thank you, Mr Bone.
	For the convenience of the Committee, I shall discuss together clauses 7 to 12, which deal with offenders assisting investigations. In overview, clauses 7 and 8 allow the Director of Service Prosecutions, in return for assistance provided by a person to an investigation or prosecution, to enter into an agreement with the person giving them immunity from prosecution or an undertaking that information will not be used against them in proceedings. Clauses 9 to 12 make provision with respect to reduced sentences for those who provide such assistance.
	The provisions closely follow those in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which apply to civilian prosecutors and courts. Under these provisions, an immunity notice or restricted use undertaking must be in writing and will normally include conditions, breach of which would lead to the immunity or undertaking being revoked.
	The Director of Service Prosecutions will, as a matter of good practice, consult the Attorney General in relation to any offer of immunity. The DSP will engage with the Director of Public Prosecutions and devolved Administrations in the event of concurrent jurisdiction. Immunity notices and restricted use undertakings can be provided only if DSP considers it appropriate in relation to the investigation or prosecution of a criminal conduct service offence, where the equivalent civilian offence is capable of being tried in the Crown Court, or a disciplinary offence for which the maximum sentence is more than two years imprisonment.

Jim Shannon: I have one quick question for the Minister. He mentioned contacting the devolved Administrations, and I am wondering what credence is given to those Administrations in respect of decisions made by Ministers in the Ministry of Defence. In other words, if there is a disagreement between the devolved Administrations and the Ministry, which takes precedence?

John Howell: As a member of the Select Committee, let me add that when we looked into these provisions and interviewed the relevant official, I was impressed with two things. The first was the need to
	refer to the Attorney General. The link between the DSP and the Attorney General is a good one. I have to say that I have forgotten what the second one was, but let the first point stand as the major point I wanted to make.

Kevan Jones: With the assurance that the Attorney General will be consulted only in very rare cases—I am not sure that the provisions will need to be used on many occasions—we support the clauses, which bring service law into line with best practice in civilian law.

Mark Lancaster: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; it is anticipated that the provisions will be used only on very rare occasions and in the most serious cases. In response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the process has not yet been tried, but it is hoped that there will not be any conflict between the various jurisdictions. If I may, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with further detail in due course.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 8 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13
	 — 
	AFA 2006: Isle of Man and British overseas territories

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Peter Bone: With this it will be convenient to consider the schedule to the Bill.

Mark Lancaster: The clause and schedule provide for the Armed Forces Act 2006, as it currently has effect in the United Kingdom, to come into force in the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories, except Gibraltar, although we are consulting the Government of Gibraltar about extending the provisions of the 2006 Act to that territory. I should make clear at this point that, as a matter of UK law, the 2006 Act will continue to apply to service personnel wherever in the world they are serving.We have consulted the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories, and they are content with our approach. We are discussing with Gibraltar whether it would be best to provide for the 2006 Act and the Bill to extend to it as well, and if Gibraltar considers that to be the case, we will introduce an amendment to that effect.

Jim Shannon: I welcome the Minister’s commitment to ensuring that the 2006 Act will come into force in the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories, with the exception of Gibraltar, and that there will be the option of extending it to the Channel Islands. We too often forget those from the overseas territories and those who serve there. I am pleased to note that this is a truly British Bill which recognises our devoted armed services throughout the globe. This move is, I believe, long overdue.
	I should like to ask the Minister two questions. First, will he give us some idea what is meant by “the option of extending it to the Channel Islands”? Secondly, is he able to give a commitment—I am not sure whether he is—that, as I hope sincerely to be the case, the exemption of Gibraltar is not due to any Spanish intrusion or interference? The sovereignty of Gibraltar is down to its
	people, and we should firmly uphold their right to remain British, no matter what actions or words may come from Madrid.

Kevan Jones: We support clause 13 and the accompanying schedule. It makes sense to extend the Act to the overseas territories.
	May I ask the Minister what the timescale is for the negotiations with Gibraltar? I realise that the elections there may have interfered with the process. May I also ask what mechanism would operate if Gibraltar accepted that the legislation should extend to it? Would we have to wait for the next Armed Forces Bill to introduce any changes that were necessary?

Mark Lancaster: Let me deal first with the question of Gibraltar. I can tell the hon. Member for Strangford that this has absolutely nothing to do with the Spanish. In 2005 Gibraltar received a new constitution, which gives it wider legislative responsibilities. As I have said, we are discussing with its Government whether it would be best to provide for that through the 2006 Act or through its own legislation.
	As the hon. Member for North Durham said, there has been a delay. That is simply because, as the House knows, Gibraltar was holding elections, which have now ended. I am keen to conclude the matter with Gibraltar as quickly as possible, and, if it wished to be included in the provisions of the Bill, the intention would be to introduce amendments in the other place at that point.
	On the wider impact, the fact that the 2006 Act has not been in force in the British overseas territories—including the Isle of Man—since 2011 has not, to our knowledge, created any difficulties. The rationale for extending the Act to those jurisdictions includes ensuring that actions that might be taken by members of our armed forces would be lawful there, not only as a matter of United Kingdom law but as a matter of their own law. For example, service police would have powers of arrest, entry and search in those jurisdictions as well. Equally, the civilian authorities in those jurisdictions can do things that they might not otherwise have powers to do under the law there. Including them in the Act gives them extra powers as well.
	All in all, we feel, having consulted, that this is a positive step.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14
	 — 
	Powers of Ministry of Defence fire-fighters in an emergency

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Peter Bone: With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 15 stand part.

Mark Lancaster: These clauses give MOD firefighters the same powers to act in emergencies as employees of civilian fire and rescue authorities. Those powers include powers to enter premises by force if necessary, to close roads and to regulate traffic. Clause 14 also makes it an offence to obstruct an MOD firefighter who is acting in an emergency.
	Clause 15 gives MOD firefighters the same exemptions from provisions in certain Acts—for example, rules on drivers’ hours—as employees of fire and rescue authorities.

Bob Stewart: May I ask the Minister for clarification? If an MOD firefighter is on a base and sees a farm, say, afire, can they go straight to that and deal with it, or do they have to wait for civilian firefighters to come, if it is off the base?

Mark Lancaster: I will come to that, but protocols are in place between MOD firefighters and local fire authorities and there have been occasions when MOD firefighters have supported local authority fire and rescue services. However, it is important that that is done in a combined and controlled way.
	The Defence Fire Risk Management Organisation provides fire and rescue operational services and support across defence at airfields, specified domestic establishments and deployed locations in the UK and overseas. DFRMO falls outside the ambit of the primary legislation that governs local fire and rescue authorities in the UK. Contractors providing fire and rescue services for defence are also present at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, QinetiQ, Babcock and Serco. They operate at sites such as Aldermaston, Burghfield and Boscombe Down. DFRMO currently has 320 fire and rescue service contractors, out of a total strength of more than 2,000 personnel. Contractor firefighters, now and in future, should also be able to deal with an emergency in the same way as MOD firefighters. We are not aware of local fire and rescue authorities using or planning to use contractor firefighters. However, there are other private and specialised fire and rescue services at other sites such as ports and airports, power stations, industrial sites and some state properties.
	The clauses constitute a simple, sensible change which gives MOD firefighters the same legal protections as their civilian counterparts.

Jim Shannon: The Minister referred to the legal protections that are provided. Is insurance protection provided as well? I am conscious that with firefighters’ extra responsibilities come the possibility of someone being hurt as a result. I would like to check that point.

Kirsten Oswald: We appreciate the work of MOD and other firefighters. It is important that we have in mind some of the concerns that the Fire Brigades Union has raised about the potential unintended consequences of the Bill. It has concerns about the impact of deploying MOD firefighters at fires and other incidents normally dealt with by local authority firefighters. However, there is clearly a need to deal with the issue that is at hand today and to streamline things. That is dealt with by the clause. We agree that it is important that we take the action suggested to close this loophole, as the clause does.

Kevan Jones: Again, this is a practical and sensible measure that closes a loophole that exists at present. Again, I pay tribute to MOD firefighters for the job that they do. I hope that these changes will ensure that they have the full protection of the law.

Mark Lancaster: Simply to answer the question from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we will of course ensure that all our firefighters have appropriate protection.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16
	 — 
	Meaning of “AFA 2006”

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Peter Bone: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Clause 17 stand part.
	Clause 18 stand part.
	Government amendment 1.
	Clause 19 stand part.
	Clause 20 stand part.
	Government new clause 1—War pensions committees and armed and reserve forces compensation schemes.
	Government amendment 2.

Mark Lancaster: I am delighted to be able to speak to these amendments today. New clause 1 acknowledges the importance that the Government place on the work of the veterans advisory and pensions committees in supporting our armed forces community. The new clause would amend section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989 to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling the VAPCs to provide advice and deal with complaints in relation to the armed forces compensation scheme 2005 and future compensation schemes enacted under the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004.
	The VAPCs already have certain functions and procedures, as described in section 25 of the 1989 Act and the war pensions committees regulations. This amendment would expand that remit, providing a legislative basis to underpin their broader role and functions. I should, however, say a bit more about the committees.
	The committees were first established as the war pensions committees in 1921. Generally, we now refer to them as the VAPCs. There are 13 such committees whose members I, as Minister responsible for defence personnel and veterans, appoint. There are about 223 members, all unpaid volunteers working within their regional committees to help ex-service personnel and their families, in particular those who are vulnerable. In exercising their statutory functions, the committees carry out a range of activities principally in relation to the war pensions scheme which until 2005 was the main scheme for payment of compensation to members of the armed forces and their spouses and dependants for injuries or death caused by service. These functions include providing local consultation with the MOD on issues concerning war pensioners and war widows or widowers; raising awareness of the war pensions scheme and the veterans welfare service; supporting and monitoring the work of the veterans welfare scheme to ensure the best possible service to war pensioners and war widows and widowers; and helping individuals in representing their difficulties or in making a complaint in relation to the war pensions or war widowers application or review process.
	However, there are new armed forces compensation schemes which were not in existence when section 25 was enacted. These include the armed forces compensation scheme and further compensation schemes which have been enacted under the 2004 Act. The new clause, with its proposed amendment to section 25 of the 1989 Act, will enable the committees to be given comparable functions relating to those new schemes too. We want the good work of these committees to continue, helping to enhance the local services delivered by ex-service personnel and their families, giving local support in promoting the armed forces covenant and the development of local community covenants, providing independent opinion on policy changes that may affect veterans, and championing individual cases. New clause 1 proposed by the Government today is for the benefit of our veterans and their families. They deserve the best.
	While discussing this new clause, I should also mention amendments 1 and 2, because they make small changes that are consequential to the new clause. Amendment 1 provides that the new clause does not extend to the Isle of Man or the British overseas territories. Section 25 of the 1989 Act, which would be amended by the new clause, extends only to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and this will remain the case. Amendment 2 simply changes the long title of this Bill to include reference to the new provisions for the war pensions committees. These amendments would give the VAPCs, as the war pensions committees are known now, a statutory basis to continue their good work. With the consent of Parliament, our intention would be to make regulations to set out their new statutory functions at the earliest opportunity.

Kirsten Oswald: We welcome all progress in supporting our military veterans, and we are supportive of this measure and how it moves things forward. It is important that we do all we can to uphold our obligations under the military covenant and to consider how we can continually facilitate the development of services for our ex-service personnel and their families.

John Howell: I do not want to intervene on the substance of this debate, but since this is the last grouping of such amendments, it is appropriate to offer my appreciation—I am sure the Minister would agree with me on this—to my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), who chaired the Select Committee that looked at this Bill, and did so in an excellent fashion. The Select Committee showed a tremendous degree of cross-party agreement on the Bill, and I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for his involvement. The Bill is a direct result of that process.

Jim Shannon: I commend the comments that the Minister has made on this subject. I am keen to see the full implementation of the military covenant and the council community covenants across the whole of Northern Ireland, from county to county and council to council, with everyone getting involved. I am also keen to hear the Minister’s ideas on how to ensure that that happens in its totality in Northern Ireland.

Kevan Jones: I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) about the work of the Chair of the Committee.
	The new clauses contain sensible proposals. When I was a Minister, I had the pleasure of meeting many of the individuals involved in the war pensions committee, and the Minister is quite right to pay tribute to the work that they do. They do not get paid for it, but they are committed to ensuring that the veterans get advice and, on occasions, to highlighting issues that might not have been relevant when legislation was being passed but that came to light afterwards, and ensuring that practical action is taken. They provide an important mechanism for supporting veterans. Perhaps I should not say this, but I am sure that the Minister is already aware that many of them have already given advice on other compensation schemes, so it is sensible to make what they are doing legal, in effect. We will be supporting the new clause.

Mark Lancaster: The hon. Member for North Durham is right, as he so often is. I am well aware that those people are already offering advice, but it would not be for me to condone from the Dispatch Box any activity that was technically illegal in any shape or form. However, they do fantastic work.
	I also echo the comments of other hon. Members who have thanked my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke for his chairmanship of the Committee. We have not quite reached the end of these discussions, however, and I would not want to take it for granted that consensus is breaking out just yet. We still have a few more new clauses and amendments to go, but I hope that we will continue in the vein in which we have started.
	In response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), of course we want to see the military covenant progressed in Northern Ireland in the best possible way. Major progress has been made in recent months, not least when the first two local authorities signed the community covenant. I am looking forward to going to Northern Ireland shortly to do what I can to promote the covenant in the Province. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that these provisions are a major step in the right direction.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 17 and 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19
	 — 
	Extent in the Channel Islands, Isle of Man and British overseas territories

Amendment made: 1, page17,line1,after “5(3),” insert—
	“(War pensions committees and armed and reserve forces compensation schemes),”—(Mark Lancaster.)
	This amendment provides that NC1 does not extend to the Isle of Man or the British overseas territories. Like section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989, NC1 is to extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (see clause 18).
	Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	War pensions committees and armed and reserve forces compensation schemes

‘(1) Section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989 (establishment and functions of war pensions committees) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (1) insert—
	“(1A) The regulations may give the committees functions relating to one or more of the following—
	(a) war pensions;
	(b) war pensioners;
	(c) AFCS benefits;
	(d) AFCS benefit recipients.”
	(3) In subsection (2)—
	(a) omit the words from the beginning to the second “and”,
	(b) for “it shall be their function” substitute “it is a function of a committee”,
	(c) n paragraph (a), for “connected with war pensions or affecting war pensioners in their area and, where they think” substitute “connected with war pensions or AFCS benefits or affecting people in its area who are war pensioners or AFCS benefit recipients and, where it thinks”,
	(d) in paragraph (b), for “to them by persons receiving or claiming war pensions and, if they think” substitute “to it by people receiving or claiming war pensions or AFCS benefits and, if it thinks”,
	(e) in paragraph (c)—
	(i) for “them” substitute “it”, and
	(ii) for “they” substitute “it”, and
	(f) in paragraph (d), for “war pensioners in their area” substitute “people in its area who are war pensioners or AFCS benefit recipients”.
	(4) After subsection (3) insert—
	“(3A) The regulations may provide for the committees to have names specified in the regulations (as well as being known as war pensions committees).”
	(5) In subsection (4), before the definition of “war pension” insert—
	““AFCS benefit” means a benefit payable under an armed and reserve forces compensation scheme established by order under section 1(2) of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004;
	“AFCS benefit recipient” means a person in receipt of an AFCS benefit, in the person’s capacity as such;”.”—(Mark Lancaster.)
	War pensions committees established under section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989 may be given functions by the Secretary of State by regulations. This new clause provides that the functions include functions relating to armed and reserve forces compensation schemes established under the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004.
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Voluntary discharge of under-18s

‘(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 329 (Terms and conditions of enlistment and service), after subsection (3) there is inserted—
	“(3A) The regulations shall make provision that any person under the age of 18 shall be entitled to end their service with a regular force by giving not less than 14 days’ notice in writing to their commanding officer, and shall ensure that any person enlisting under the age of 18 is informed of this right when they enlist.”” —(Liz Saville Roberts.)
	This amendment ensures that those under 18 years of age are to discharge themselves from the Armed Forces should they so wish.
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

Peter Bone: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 3—Enlistment of minors—
	‘(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 328(2) (c) (Enlistment) the words “without the consent of prescribed persons” are omitted.”
	This amendment ensures that only those above 18 years of age are able to enlist in the Armed Forces.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I rise to speak to new clauses 2 and 3, which stand in my name and those of several hon. Members from various parties across the House. First, I wish to say that these are probing provisions and I do not intend to press them to a Division. Although the Bill does not contain provisions on the recruitment age, it is entirely appropriate that we consider this important issue within the context of this Bill. I should state at the outset that I am a great supporter of the work that the women and men who serve in the armed forces do daily, and that their honour and sacrifice knows no bounds; they are a credit to the communities they serve. Before turning to the new clauses, I would like to put on record my respect for the sterling work they do.
	What I am concerned about, as are others from across the House, given the signatories to the new clauses, is the UK’s continued policy of recruiting children to the armed forces. As politicians, we have a duty of care to those we ask to serve on our behalf. The UK is one of only 19 countries in the world that recruit minors to the armed forces. It is the only member of the UN Security Council, the only member of NATO and the only European country that recruits children, and the policy needs to be changed to bring the UK into the modern world. I note that, to the UK Government’s great shame, even countries such as Zimbabwe, Iran and North Korea do not enlist minors.
	While we are rightly saddened and repulsed by examples of child soldier recruitment in far-flung countries, some of which have experienced decades of civil war and economic turmoil and strife, we often forget that the UK’s whistle is not entirely clean when we inspect to see whether our own house is in order.
	I am grateful to predecessors in all parts of the House who have campaigned on this issue down the years, seeking to get successive Governments of all colours to change policy on the recruitment of minors. Those with a keen eye and knowledge of this matter will probably recognise that these new clauses are not all that new and have been tabled before under various guises down the years. I am grateful to Members of the House past and present who have pressed this matter in years gone by, and I acknowledge their efforts. This a matter of a wren rising from the wings of eagles.
	I am aware that recruits under the age of 18 are not required to fight in active combat roles. There may well be an argument in favour of allowing those with a calling—a vocation—to serve in the armed forces where they do not possess the drive or desire to pursue an otherwise academic route, or have a vocational route into other employment. For them, joining the armed forces provides focus and allows them a route to fulfilment. I am not opposed to children of 16 and 17 years of age being able to demonstrate their interest in the armed forces, or to their joining groups that can help them prepare for a career in the armed forces if that is what they wish to do upon reaching adulthood and the age of consent. What I am opposed to is the recruitment of minors into the armed forces, and the potential for such young people to make binding commitments at an unacceptably early age. I believe the Government should end this anomaly, live up to the standards they claim to demand from others and end the recruitment of minors.
	At the very least—this is the thinking behind new clause 2—those under the age of 18 should be freely able to discharge themselves from duty should they so wish and not have to give three months’ notice, during which time they may very well be pressurised to change their minds. Three months is too long a period to have to wait having made that decision. They should also be robustly informed of the right to withdraw with a shorter period of notice—14 days—when they enlist.
	The Duty of Care report emphasises that the youngest recruits, particularly those under the age of 18, who are legally children, were the ones who presented greatest concern in relation to duty of care. The report’s recommendation for a review has since been followed by a number of similar calls from national and international bodies. In 2008, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child asked that the UK
	“Reconsider its active policy of recruitment of children into the armed forces”.
	It also recommended that the Government ensure that recruitment
	“Does not occur in a manner which specifically targets ethnic minorities and children of low-income families,”
	And that
	“Parents are included from the outset and during the entire process of recruitment and enlistment.”
	This policy has been called into question by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and many other respected bodies, including children’s commissioners.
	The welfare of young recruits has been in sharp focus since the tragic events at Deepcut barracks, which is in the news again with the announcement of the inquest early next year. Indeed, it is hard to believe that a decade has passed since those tragic events, yet the Government have still not implemented the recommendations of the Defence Committee’s crucial “Duty of Care” report, which recommended that the MOD examine the potential impact of raising to 18 the recruitment age for all three services, and ensure that those under 18 do not undertake armed guard duty. It also recommended a review of material, setting out rights, responsibilities and the nature of commitment in the sort of language that potential recruits will understand.
	All four deaths at Deepcut involved a young recruit on guard duty, and two were just 17, yet the practice of under-18s taking part in armed guard duty continues to this day, despite the “Duty of Care” report. The MOD is prioritising operational effectiveness over the rights and welfare of young people in its care. It is high time for the UK to move into line and adhere to international norms on the military recruitment age.
	It is also a matter of concern that the youngest recruits are most likely to be enlisted into roles that, when they do come of age, are potentially the most dangerous. I understand that that is particularly true of the infantry, which is concerned about bringing in more recruits. Young people will find themselves committed to a particularly dangerous role at an early age.
	I have deep concerns about the armed forces and, as I have said, about the infantry’s recruitment practices of targeting schools while masquerading as educational visits, as well as frequenting poorer areas where other economic opportunities are fewer compared with those in wealthier areas. That is particularly true in areas of Wales and in my own constituency. However, those are matters for another time.

Mark Lancaster: Has the hon. Lady visited the Army Foundation College at Harrogate? If not, may I invite her to do so?

Liz Saville-Roberts: I have not visited the college, but I would be delighted to do so. My background is in further education, and I have taught public services courses where boys and girls—young men and young women—were actively targeted, so I have some experience in this matter.
	As I have just said, the matters that I have just raised are perhaps for another time. Today, we are concerned with the specific need to change the law, so that recruitment in the armed forces is in line with international and developed world standards and norms. I urge the Government to consider the proposed new clauses. If they are not minded to accept them, perhaps they can bring forward their own proposals.

Jim Shannon: I rise to endorse the status quo. I am sorry that I cannot agree with the new clauses proposed by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), for whom I have the greatest respect.
	Training starts at an early age. It starts with the cadets for a great many of our young boys and girls who go on, in the greater spectrum of life, to become the men and women in uniform. That introduction and early training at cadet level gives young people a chance to show their potential and an interest in the armed forces. It also enables them to go further with the training if that is what they wish to do. I am keen to see that training encouraged and retained. I am also conscious, as I know the Minister is, of the fact that a level of training needs to be achieved before a person reaches the age of 18. If we can start from the age of 15 or 16, or even earlier, we will have young soldiers—male and female—equipped and trained to the highest standard and with the necessary experience. With great respect, I feel that what we have at present is perfectly acceptable.

Conor McGinn: The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) spoke eloquently and sincerely, but I am afraid that I disagree with her. Many young men and women in my constituency, St Helens North, join the armed forces for the benefits of a constructive education, training and employment, and for those young adults serving their country drives social mobility.
	Recruitment at 16 is fully compliant with the UN convention on the rights of the child. As the hon. Lady recognised, soldiers are not deployed until they reach the age of 18.
	I caution against the use of the word “children” and particularly the term “child soldier”, which is not only incorrect but somewhat offensive. Indeed, it belittles the trauma and plight of those children across the world who are forced into war and soldiery. For all those reasons, I am afraid that, despite the hon. Lady’s forceful argument, I cannot support new clauses 2 or 3.

Kirsten Oswald: The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) makes her points regarding service personnel aged under 18 well. However, my hon. Friends and I think it important that young people have the opportunity to have as many career options and life choices as possible at that stage in their lives.
	I echo the hon. Lady’s words when she said that it is our responsibility to remember the duty of care for service personnel young and old. In particular, we have a duty of care for younger members of our armed forces. We do not support the new clause, which would prohibit those who are under 18 from joining the armed services, and we note that they are not deployed at that age.
	Young people who join the armed services have the opportunity to change career paths, and it does not seem unreasonable for them to do so by giving less notice, so we support the hon. Lady’s suggestion of their having additional opportunities to change their career paths if they so wish after a short period of notice.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) rightly raises recruitment to the armed forces at 16, and as she says, this is not the first time that the issue has been addressed. It was discussed when I served on the Committee that considered the Armed Forces Act 2006. Like my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), I think that it does us no service trying to draw an analogy between the recruitment of youngsters in the UK at 16 and those who are forced to join up to fight in wars, for example, in west Africa and other parts of the world. The contrast could not be starker, and as my hon. Friend said, it does no good to our cause of trying to eradicate the practices that take place in other parts of the world.
	Youngsters recruited from the age of 16 cannot be deployed until they are 18, and the activities that those individuals undertake are a force for good. I have visited Harrogate, and one of my most inspiring days as a Minister was spent at HMS Raleigh, taking a passing out parade. When talking to the individuals who had completed their basic training there, the changes that had taken place were clear, as was not only their pride but that of their families who attended the event. Some of the parents told me afterwards that the changes that they saw in the short time—10 weeks—that those individuals had been in the Navy was nothing short of remarkable.
	On the tragic circumstances at Deepcut, I served on the Defence Committee, along with you, Mr Crausby, when we did a major investigation into the duty of care.
	Not only the last Government but this Government are committed to the changes proposed not only in the Select Committee report but in that of Mr Nicholas Blake QC on the tragic events at Deepcut. Is it right to say that there were problems? Yes, there were problems, and we referred to them in our report. Many of them have been addressed, including guard duty, which was used to occupy people’s time between phase 1 and phase 2 training.
	The work that all three services do with the individuals who join up at 16 is certainly important. All three services do remarkable work correcting the problems that some of those individuals have had in the education system. Work such as that done at Harrogate and Catterick with Darlington college, for example, to try to raise literacy rates is not only helpful to the individual, but remarkably successful.
	I see no problem with the recruitment of young people at 16. The involvement of parents has been mentioned. As far as I am aware, they are fully involved in the process before people agree to join the armed forces, and their involvement is ongoing. All three services work closely with parents and guardians. One aspect that we covered in the report by the Defence Committee was the case of young people coming out of care and joining the armed forces. I know that the MOD has put in place clear protocols for dealing with individuals in that situation.
	An issue that requires attention, which I struggled with and which I think the Minister will struggle with as well, is early service leavers—people who leave not after basic training, but shortly after joining the armed forces. Such cases raise difficult questions about how the armed forces can help those young people in their transition back to civilian life, and how civilian life can address some of the problems that those young people have, not necessarily as a result of their career in the armed forces, but deep-seated problems that were present before they joined.
	Anyone who meets recruits at our basic training facilities cannot fail to be impressed by the transformation of those individuals. We sometimes concentrate on the negative aspects of being a member of our armed forces. I have always been proud to say that in most cases being a member of the armed forces is life changing for those individuals, and has a positive impact on their career choices, their lives in the armed forces and subsequently, when they leave and become Government Ministers, like the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster).

Mark Lancaster: I am delighted to be joined by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice who, I hear, joined the Army at the age of 16 years and two days—[Interruption.] A long time ago, yes.
	I recognise that there are a variety of views across the House and I am grateful to be able to debate the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). The MOD sees junior entry as offering a range of benefits to the individual, the armed forces and society, providing a valuable vocational training opportunity for those wishing to follow a career in the armed forces. We take our duty of care for entrants under 18 extremely seriously. Close attention has been given to this subject in recent years, especially after the tragic deaths at Deepcut. We have robust, effective and independently verified safeguards in place to ensure that under-18s are cared for properly.
	The provision of education and training for 16-year-old school leavers provides a route into the armed forces that complies with Government education policy and provides a significant foundation for emotional, physical and educational development throughout an individual’s career. There is no compulsory recruitment into the armed forces. Our recruiting policy is absolutely clear. No one under the age of 18 can join the armed forces without formal parental consent, which is checked twice during the application process. In addition, parents and guardians are positively encouraged to be engaged with the recruiting staff during the process.
	Service personnel under the age of 18 are not deployed on any operation outside the UK except where the operation does not involve personnel becoming engaged in, or exposed to, hostilities. In July 2015, the High Court dismissed a judicial review brought by the organisation Child Soldiers International, alleging that the enlistment of Army recruits aged 16 to 18 was in conflict with the equal treatment directive. All service personnel have a statutory right to claim discharge up to their 18th birthday, and the right of discharge is made clear to all service personnel on joining the armed forces. There is a long-standing legal right of all new recruits, regardless of age, to discharge within their first three to six months, depending on their service, if they decide that the armed forces is not a career for them.
	Under armed forces regulations, everyone under the age of 18 serving in the armed forces has a further right to claim discharge up to their 18th birthday. For the first six months of service, this is achieved by giving not less than 14 days’ notice in writing to their commanding officer after an initial period of 28 days’ service. At any other time after six months’ service, those under the age of 18 who wish to leave must give notice in writing to their commanding officer, who must then discharge the under-18 within the next three months. For those who give notice just prior to their 18th birthday, this means that the latest they will be discharged is at 18 years and three months of age. These three months represent a cooling-off period to avoid the unintended consequence of a decision made in the heat of the moment. A shorter period may well be agreed with the commanding officer, but three months provides the under-18 with a period of due reflection and the right to rescind their request for discharge. This process ensures that individuals under the age of 18 have an appropriate period of time to consider their decision to leave, and offers flexibility depending on individual circumstances. Ultimately, all service personnel under the age of 18 have a statutory right to leave the armed forces up until their 18th birthday.
	All recruits aged under age 18 receive key skills education in literacy and numeracy, should they need it, and all are enrolled on to apprenticeships. The armed forces remain the UK’s largest apprenticeship provider, equipping young people with valuable and transferable skills for life. Over 95% of all recruits, no matter what their age or prior qualifications, enrol in an apprenticeship each year. The armed forces offer courses in a wide range of skills, such as engineering, information and communications technology, construction, driving, and
	animal care. Ofsted regularly inspects our care of newly joined young recruits, and we are very proud of the standards we achieve. We welcome this specialist confirmation that we treat our young recruits well. In the Select Committee, the Chief of the General Staff, Sir Nick Carter, described the process of recruiting young people, treating them in the right way, and providing them with new opportunities as “incredibly positive”. I take pride in the fact that our armed forces provide challenging and constructive education, training and employment opportunities for young people while in service.
	I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), and agree with him, about his concerns for early leavers. I am focusing on that area, and I am delighted that it is addressed by the new career transition partnership that was introduced on 1 October.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Requirement to publish statistics on sexual assault and rape

‘(1) Each service police force must collect and publish annually anonymised statistics on the number of allegations of sexual assault and rape made by and against members of the armed forces.
	(2) The Director of Service Prosecutions must collect and publish annually anonymised statistics on the number of cases involving allegations of sexual assault and rape made by and against members of the armed forces, including but not necessarily limited to—
	(a) the number of cases referred from the service police forces;
	(b) how many of these cases were prosecuted; and
	(c) how many convictions were secured.”—(Mr Kevan Jones.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Kevan Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

David Crausby: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 6—Removal of Commanding Officer’s discretion to investigate allegations of sexual assault—
	‘(1) Schedule 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 [Schedule 2 offences] is amended as follows.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (12)(at), leave out “3, 66, 67 or”
	New clause 7—Civilian investigations and prosecutions relating to murder, sexual assault, and rape—
	‘(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 118 [Duty of service policeman to notify CO of referral to DSP] insert—
	“118A Civilian investigations and prosecutions relating to murder, sexual assault, and rape
	(1) Criminal investigations into allegations of murder, sexual assault, and rape by and against members of the Armed Forces shall be undertaken by the relevant civilian police authorities.
	(2) Criminal prosecutions of charges involving murder, sexual assault, and rape by and against members of the Armed Forces shall be undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service.””

Kevan Jones: It gives me great pleasure to speak to new clauses 5, 6 and 7. I apologise to members of the Committee who are here, because they have heard many of these issues discussed before. In the replies that we got in Committee, undertakings were given that some of those issues would be looked at. These are mainly probing amendments, but I will wait to see what the Minister brings forward.
	New clause 5 is about the service police gathering statistics on serious sexual assaults and rapes. For the civilian police, there is no statutory obligation to do this, but it is now best practice, and individuals are able to look at trends in different police forces. In Committee, we were told by the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) that the service police already collect such statistics and that they can be obtained through the use of parliamentary questions or freedom of information requests.
	I give credit both to the Ministry of Defence and to General Sir Nick Carter, who gave evidence to the Select Committee. I think he is genuinely committed to changing attitudes in the Army, to ensure not only openness and transparency, but, as he has outlined in his introductory leadership guide, zero tolerance of anyone who steps outside of the law. He has also been commended for his efforts not only to recruit more women to the Army, but to ensure that they progress through the armed forces to more senior positions.
	Evidence in the 2005 report shows that 39% of servicewomen questioned said that they had faced harassment, and that cannot be right. It also notes that 33% said that they had faced unwelcome attempts to talk about sexual matters or had felt uncomfortable in some conversations. Why is it important to publish such statistics? Clearly, they have already been collated. I know that the Ministry of Defence moves at a snail’s pace and occasionally needs a push to come up with best practice, but I cannot see any reason why the statistics should not be produced annually, given that they are already available. Doing so would enable us to look at trends—that has been important in civilian police forces—and at whether the initiatives to bear down on unacceptable behaviour in all three services are actually having an effect.
	Members should not have to ask a parliamentary question or have to make a freedom of information request in order to get that information. I cannot for the life of me understand the reluctance towards making it available, apart from the usual conservativism—with a small “c”—and snail’s pace of the Ministry of Defence. Let us be honest: if the statistics are published annually, I assure anyone who is watching that the sky will not fall in. I think it would send a proper and clear message. It is important that what General Carter and others are saying about advancing and promoting women, and about bearing down on unacceptable behaviour, is scrutinised properly.
	New clause 6 relates to the commanding officer, who is in the unique position of being able to decide whether an allegation of sexual assault should be referred to the military police or to the civil police for investigation. The Select Committee had a long discussion about this issue and I certainly feel that it puts a commanding officer in the position of making judgments when he or she might not be in full cognisance of the facts, so a referral to the police would be a better approach. However, General Carter indicated to the Select Committee that commanding officers are recommended to take legal advice before deciding how to deal with such cases. One way to reach compromise would be to codify an obligation on commanding officers to take legal advice in all instances before taking such a decision.
	New clause 7 deals with the serious issues not only of violent crime, but of rape. I tabled the new clause to raise the question of whether the military police have the capacity or expertise to deal with serious rape or murder cases. I accept what the Minister said in the Select Committee about the great advances made in training and support for the military police, as well as the techniques available. There has been some movement on things that are done as a matter of course by the civilian police.
	We discussed the matter in the Select Committee, but I repeat that some of the cases, especially rape cases, are complex. Civilian forces have developed techniques, such as the use of rape suites for victims. The volume of cases dealt with by civilian forces means that they are more capable not only of supporting victims when they come forward, but of investigating such serious sexual assaults or rape. Thankfully, the number of instances dealt with in the armed forces is low. The Metropolitan police and other large forces clearly deal with a large number of cases, and they have both expertise and officers who have dealt with different types of sexual assault and rape. Such individuals or police forces would be better placed to ensure that a victim in the military received the same high standards and support that we would expect for the victims of such crimes in civilian life.

Jim Shannon: I wish to ask a question about new clause 7. I agree with the shadow Minister, who has very carefully and cautiously outlined the issues. In the past, there have been examples of women who have been abused and raped, which has led to suicide, trauma or depression. These are very important matters. Will the Minister confirm that, as part of an investigation within the existing process, an investigating officer has the power to call any soldiers whatever, male or female, who may have been present when something took place, and that none of them can say, “No, we won’t do that”? I want to make sure that there is a full investigation, and that the person assaulted is given the necessary protection.

Kirsten Oswald: It is vital that all matters relating to allegations of or concerns about serious and complex crimes, including sexual assault, rape and murder, are handled with the utmost seriousness, so it is important that such cases are dealt with by the appropriate authorities and with the benefit of the best legal advice. Commanding officers in our armed forces are men and women of skill, professionalism, grit and integrity, but it may simply not be fair to expect them to possess the same level of specialist investigatory skills as those with a professional background in such skills. We would not expect that of any other group. If the victims and alleged perpetrators are dealt with by specialist authorities, everyone will be aware that such matters are handled, as we would all hope, with the appropriate structure, uniformity of approach, transparency and professional best practice.
	The maintenance and publication of statistics on sexual assault and rape are key. It is simply not possible or desirable to make assumptions about the level or severity of allegations, prosecutions or convictions. We can only know such details via robust, consistently formatted and regularly produced statistics that are put in the public domain. We would wish to see improvements in the 2017 survey relating to sexual harassment, compared with 2014.
	Releasing such statistics is part of our duty of care towards service personnel. It was interesting and heartening to hear in the Select Committee that some of that happens anyway, but it is not approached in a uniform or consistent manner across all services. Without a uniform approach that has the same definitions, frameworks and publication dates, we cannot reasonably keep this matter under review, which we absolutely should do to ensure that we continue to work towards transparency, clarity and improvement for the benefit of all service personnel.

Mark Lancaster: I am pleased that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has returned to these proposals and I welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters before the Committee.
	Allegations of sexual assault and rape should never be treated lightly. It is important to us that members of the armed forces are treated well and that we foster an environment in which people have confidence that unacceptable behaviour is not tolerated and that allegations of such behaviour are dealt with. It is important that we are active in driving that forward.
	The hon. Member for North Durham is right to raise the publication of statistics. During the Select Committee consideration of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) set out the current arrangements in the service justice system for the collection and publication of crime statistics. I will repeat them for the benefit of the Committee.
	The service police crime bureau keeps records for all three services of allegations of rape and sexual assault that are made to the service police. That information is released regularly in response to parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests. In the case of the latter, the information is uploaded to the MOD’s online publication scheme, where it can be freely accessed. Let me be clear that I want to explore how we can be more proactive in releasing this information.
	The service police crime bureau has been liaising with the Home Office police forces to analyse crime recording practices and rules to identify methods of improving crime recording. As a result, the bureau is working to establish a post of crime registrar, similar to that found in all other police forces, with a remit to scrutinise and audit the recording of crimes on the service police investigation management system. That will lead to further improvements.
	The Service Prosecuting Authority records, for each year, the number of cases referred to it, the number of cases in which charges are preferred and the number of cases in which a conviction is secured. The Military
	Court Service publishes on the internet, on a regular basis, details of every case that is heard at the court martial, including offences, outcomes and punishments. There is, therefore, a clear picture of the extent of this type of offending within the services, giving a strong indication of the proportion of cases referred from the service police to the Service Prosecuting Authority that were prosecuted and of the conviction rate in such cases.
	As General Sir Nick Carter, the Chief of the General Staff, said when giving evidence to the Select Committee on the Bill:
	“In terms of publishing facts, figures and statistics, I am very solidly behind trying to do that.”
	He said that the legislation goes far enough at the moment, but that we must do more, and I agree. Although I am not convinced that it is necessary or appropriate to set out requirements in legislation for the publication of such data, I am determined to make the data that we publish robust, consistent and accessible. To that end, I am actively considering how best to publish the data as an official statistic.
	Turning to new clause 6 on the commanding officer’s discretion to investigate, I reassure the Committee that the armed forces already have procedures in place to ensure that allegations of sexual assault are handled appropriately. The commanding officer’s duties in that respect are clear. The starting point is that if a commanding officer becomes aware of an allegation or evidence that would indicate to a reasonable person that a service offence may have been committed by someone under his command, he must ensure that it is investigated “appropriately”. That is a specific statutory duty under the Armed Forces Act 2006. The commanding officer must therefore refer the matter to the service police if it would be appropriate.
	The service police can, and do, act on their own initiative, even if a commanding officer does not think it appropriate to ensure that they are aware of the case. For example, the service police could be approached by a victim or a witness, they could come across an offence while patrolling, or the civilian police could become involved and pass them the case.
	Almost all of the large number of sexual offences under part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, including rape and assault by penetration, are already schedule 2 offences. If a commanding officer becomes aware of an allegation, or of evidence that would indicate to a reasonable person that one of those offences may have been committed by someone under his command, he must report that to the service police. We must consider whether a commanding officer should have any discretion over whether to report an allegation of sexual assault, exposure or voyeurism to the service police, in circumstances where a victim or witness does not report the matter to the service or civilian police, and when the service police are not otherwise aware of it.
	Importantly, before a commanding officer takes command, he receives training in how to exercise his powers under the Act, and he has access to legal advice 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As the Chief of the General Staff, Sir Nick Carter, made clear, there is a specific requirement in the manual of service law that a commanding officer is to take legal advice when sexual assault, voyeurism or exposure have been alleged. The manual has been amended to make specific mention of those offences in the section on “deciding how to investigate”, and it states that there should be a presumption that the commanding officer will normally ensure that the service police are aware of an allegation of such an offence.
	Crucially, although it will rarely be appropriate for the commanding officer not to refer an allegation of sexual assault to the service police, the offence is so wide that I consider it right for the commanding officer to have some discretion, taking into account the wishes of the victim. I fear that an unintended consequence of the new clause may be to discourage some victims from coming forward, since the matter of reporting to the police will be taken out of their hands. The victim, of course, retains the ability to report directly to the service police. I believe that there is already a robust framework and that it is not necessary to impose on commanding officers a statutory duty—which does not apply to any other employer—to refer every allegation of sexual assault and the other offences covered by the new clause to the service police, regardless of what the victim may want.
	New clause 7 deals with civilian investigations into serious offences, and would require all investigations into allegations of murder, rape and sexual assault by and against service personnel to be undertaken by the civilian police, and all prosecutions for such offences to be undertaken by the civilian Crown Prosecution Service. The service police and prosecuting authority have the necessary expertise and independence to investigate effectively and prosecute serious offences, including murder, rape and sexual assault by and against service personnel. The service justice system has been scrutinised by the UK courts, and in Strasbourg, and has been held to be compliant with the European convention on human rights for investigations and prosecutions in the UK and abroad where the civilian police do not have jurisdiction.
	The service police have been held by the courts to be structurally, and in practice, independent from the chain of command, and they are trained and able to carry out investigations into the most serious offences at home and abroad. All prospective members of the special investigation branch, which investigates serious crimes, must pass the serious crime investigation course before being selected for that unit. Officers receive specialist training on the handling of sexual offences, investigative techniques, forensic awareness, dealing with witnesses and suspects, the preservation of evidence, and interaction with victims.
	Selected members of the service police attend a range of specialist and advanced detective training at the Defence College of Policing and Guarding, or externally with the College of Policing or training providers accredited by that college. At the Service Prosecuting Authority, prosecutors are trained to prosecute serious cases effectively. For example, prosecution of serious sexual offences requires attendance on the CPS rape and serious sexual offences specialist training course, and the SPA ensures that decisions on charging are taken only by prosecutors who have completed that training.
	The prosecutors protocol of 2011 between the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Director of Service Prosecutions, and the Defence Secretary, recognises that any offence can be dealt with by the service authorities. The main principle in deciding who acts is whether the offence has any civilian context, especially a civilian victim. The protocol provides that cases with a civilian context are dealt with by the civilian criminal justice system.
	I should also say something about independence, both of the service police and the Director of Service Prosecutions. This is important, because I want to make clear that there is no room for interference in investigations. The service police have been held by the courts to be structurally, and in practice, independent from the chain of command for investigative purposes. Like any police force, it is recognised that there is a need for arrangements to be in place to ensure that the independence of an investigation is not compromised, or perceived to be compromised. For example, it is recognised there are times when a particular service police force should not investigate. There is a tri-service investigations protocol, which provides for another service police force to carry out an investigation where a service police force would otherwise be investigating its own personnel.
	With regards to the independence of the Director of Service Prosecutions, he is an independent civilian office-holder exercising statutory powers under the superintendence of the Attorney General. The Service Prosecuting Authority is created by statute, with three main elements. The first element is the creation of the office of Director of Service Prosecutions and his appointment by Her Majesty. The director is appointed on the basis of fair and open competition. The second element is the provision for who may act on his behalf. The Director specifies the lawyers who may act on his behalf. The third element is that the necessary statutory powers in relation to prosecutions in service courts are given to the Director personally, and not to the chain of command.
	I believe that the service police and the Service Prosecuting Authority have the necessary expertise and independence to investigate effectively and prosecute the full range of offences. It is crucial to remember that, given that service personnel are subject to the provisions of the Armed Forces Act wherever they serve in the world, service police remain able to investigate in these areas where their civilian counterparts may not. This ensures that our personnel are dealt with fairly and consistently. I am confident that we do not need to legislate further on these matters. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for North Durham will withdraw his amendments.

Kevan Jones: I thank the Minister for his reply. I was not wanting to question the independence of the military service police, but there is ongoing concern about its capacity and expertise. One way forward, on which the Ministry of Defence is moving very slowly, is the independent inspection of that force.
	On the commanding officer, I hear what the Minister says. When General Carter came before the Committee, people were reassured that in practice allegations are taken very seriously and that when victims come forward legal advice is not only available but referred to. In saying that, if it is not going to be in the Bill that commanding officers should take legal advice before deciding on whether to take forward or dismiss a complaint, the services perhaps need to consider whether it should be codified through some kind of internal process.
	On the publication of statistics, it is welcome that common sense has finally blossomed. The Minister is right that statistics are available. I cannot think he has anything to hide by not publishing them. I respect his commitment to come up with a system to publish them annually. I accept that perhaps more work needs to be done on the format and where they are produced. With the passage of the Bill I will be looking, as I am sure will fellow members of the Committee, to see how that advances. If I may give him a word of advice, in my experience he should insist on a timeline. Otherwise—no disrespect to some very able civil servants in the MOD—it might get pushed off into a siding and, if he leaves his post, might not be not picked up by his successor. This is important. Neither the military nor the MOD has anything to fear from producing these figures, and it would add to the good work being done by the MOD and the three services to address these issues. With those comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8
	 — 
	Review of compensation available to veterans suffering from mesothelioma

Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must commission a review of how former members of the armed forces who have contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos in the course of their military service are compensated, and must lay the report of this review before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Mr Kevan Jones.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Kevan Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The new clause, which is similar to one I moved at an earlier stage, would affect veterans who have the misfortune to suffer from mesothelioma. You will know, Mr Crausby, from your engineering background, how debilitating this terrible condition is and the death sentence it imposes.
	In 2014, the Government set up the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme under the Mesothelioma Act 2014 to pay lump sum compensation to civilians who contracted mesothelioma in cases where former employers or insurance companies could not be traced. Under the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987, many veterans are not covered by the scheme and so do not have the option to sue the MOD over this death sentence.
	Great strides have been made to improve health and safety in handling asbestos, not just in civilian life but within the MOD, but we are talking here about cases that go back 30 or 40 years, if not further. Mesothelioma is one of those terrible conditions that affects people at random. In a previous life, when I was legal officer for the GMB, I saw old shipyard workers with asbestos scars on their hands who did not suffer from any other conditions, while some people exposed to quite low levels of asbestos developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related cancers.
	Under the current provisions, affected veterans can apply for a 100% war pension, if it is agreed that their diagnosis is related to their service. The Royal British Legion, which has campaigned on this, estimates that the option to claim compensation would affect 2,500 personnel, mainly—not surprisingly—naval veterans who handled asbestos in the course of their work. It tells me that asbestos has some peculiar effects for single individuals and widowers. The proposal is that the Secretary of State come forward with a scheme for veterans similar to the one outlined by the Government in 2014. It would also continue their work of supporting veterans, irrespective of where they served, and bring the law for veterans suffering from mesothelioma into line with that for civilians, who are covered by the 2014 Act. That is what organisations such as the Royal British Legion have been campaigning for.

Kirsten Oswald: I support the view of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that this matter must be dealt with. There is an urgency to it, because veterans suffering from mesothelioma simply do not have time for us to delay any further. We have heard about the campaign of the Royal British Legion, which calls on the Government to find fairer ways of compensating veterans suffering from this devastating condition. It has been an effective campaign, and it is right to highlight what a terrible disease mesothelioma is.
	It is an unimaginable tragedy for veterans and their families to receive this diagnosis. We cannot imagine the enormous impact it has on their lives. To be clear, rectifying this unfair treatment will not make anybody suffering from the disease any better, but it might improve the quality of the period of life they have left and it might mean less anxiety about those they leave behind them.
	Thousands of people serving in our armed forces prior to 1987 were exposed to asbestos while under military orders and have subsequently been diagnosed with mesothelioma. As the hon. Member for North Durham said, approximately 2,500 ex-service personnel are affected in this way. They clearly lose out very significantly when compared with civilians in the same position. For instance, while the civilian population suffering from mesothelioma is eligible for up to £180,000 in compensation, our ex-service personnel are eligible for only £31,000. Our veterans are clearly being treated less well than their civilian counterparts. This is a very significant difference, and it is no way to support our service personnel. I hope to hear some positive words from the Minister about this.
	The military covenant commits the Government to removing disadvantages to service personnel—and this is most certainly a disadvantage at a very difficult time in people’s lives. We need to be able to deal with this—and quickly. The Royal British Legion summarises the situation very well when it says that it is
	“unfair and has to change!”.
	It is unacceptable to treat our terminally ill veterans in this way; the hon. Member for North Durham is correct in his call for urgency.
	My concern is that this matter was already being discussed and highlighted as urgent when the Mesothelioma Act 2014 was being reviewed as a Bill in July 2013, yet so far this issue has not been resolved—despite assurances on many occasions that action was imminent. It is our duty to deal with it now before other ex-service personnel have their final months blighted by this financial worry and inequity. I hope that the Minister can allay these concerns today, so that we can see some positive progress made and deal with our veterans as we should.

Jim Shannon: I endorse the comments of the shadow Minister once again. As the Minister will know, we have had some fringe discussions on this issue in the Defence Committee. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), who usually sits behind me but is not in his place, has tabled an early-day motion to highlight the issue. The Royal British Legion, as the hon. Members for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) and for North Durham (Mr Jones) have said, has been part of the campaign and has lobbied hard.
	We are all aware of some constituents who have this problem, but if I can be forgiven for saying it, the longer this goes on, the more the guys who would probably qualify for any agreed compensation are likely not to be here any more. That may sound cynical, but it crosses the minds of the potential recipients of the compensation and those of elected representatives who want to reflect the opinion that they are given by such people.
	I and the shadow Minister both want to see a fair and equal distribution coming out of the compensation process—as it is for civilians, so it should be for those who have served in uniform. As the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire said when she dealt with the military covenant, these things should really happen normally, without any need for requests from this Chamber. The military covenant is clear; the negative obstacles should be taken away. Members should be able to express their opinion here on behalf of their constituents. There is an urgency about this matter because we need to put right an injustice. I just want to add my support to that of the shadow Minister and other Members who are not in their places today but would love to be here to support this request.

Martin Docherty: I commend the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for tabling the new clause. I wish to associate myself with what he said, and with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I also congratulate the Royal British Legion on the campaign it has been conducting over the past few months.
	I believe that the Members who have already spoken have conveyed to the Minister the depth of feeling about mesothelioma and the impact of asbestos-related conditions on our service personnel. My constituency has a clear, direct link with mesothelioma through shipbuilding. We see the daily impact of asbestos on the lives of communities, not just the people who were in contact with it in the shipyards—both men and women—but their families.
	It is inexplicable to me that we might not wish to provide equal support for our armed forces personnel. I think particularly of naval personnel who have been involved in the lagging of ship hulls during tours of duty, but I think also of Army personnel who have been based in premises that were built with asbestos cement, and mechanics who have dealt with vehicles that were insulated with asbestos. They will have not only come into contact with blue or white asbestos dust during their working lives, but brought it into their home lives.
	I hope that the Government will recognise the intentions of the hon. Member for North Durham, and will seek to ensure that at least some cross-party work is done to enable us to bring this to a conclusion. Enough is enough: asbestos-related conditions form a major part of my constituency work. I am grateful to Clydebank Asbestos Group, which for many years, and with the support of many of my predecessors, has continued to work with other asbestos-related groups.
	The Government really must listen to what the hon. Gentleman has said. Let us get this done.

Mark Lancaster: The new clause would impose an obligation on the Defence Secretary to instigate a review of compensation for veterans with mesothelioma. My view is that such a step would not require legislation, and has been overtaken by events.
	As I said on 19 November during the Adjournment debate on compensation for our military veterans who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, we recognise that it is a devastating disease that changes the lives not only of the people who are diagnosed with it but of those who care about them: their families and loved ones.
	Veterans with mesothelioma caused by their military service are entitled to make a claim for no-fault compensation from the Ministry of Defence. The war pensions scheme provides a tax-free pension and supplementary allowances, along with dependants’ benefits. The Government ascribe great importance to the health and well-being of our veterans, and we are clear about the fact that they should not be disadvantaged as a result of their service. We are absolutely committed to supporting them and the wider armed forces community.
	Mesothelioma is a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, and 40 years or more can often pass before it manifests itself and an individual is diagnosed, tragically with a short life expectancy thereafter. That is why it is so important to ensure that we provide the right support for those who are affected by the disease. We owe them all a debt of profound gratitude. I am therefore pleased to announce that any veteran who is diagnosed from mesothelioma from today will be offered a choice between receiving a lump sum of £140,000 and receiving the traditional war pension payments. It is currently proposed that the necessary legislative changes will come into force on 11 April 2016, but I am keen to consider options for bringing the date forward. Claimants choosing the option of a lump sum will continue to receive a monthly payment until the lump sum is paid. The Veterans Welfare Service will be on hand to help claimants to understand the new option.
	As my hon. Friends will know, the policy of no retrospection has been maintained by successive Governments. Whether it should be applied to this group is a complex issue that has been the subject of much discussion within the Government. However, I have directed my Department to continue to review the options to support these claimants in a similar manner. I have received a great deal of correspondence, and I intend to write to the Members who have contacted my Department with a full update.
	On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for North Durham to withdraw his motion.

Kevan Jones: I think it would be rather churlish if I did not! I thank the Minister. What he has said shows his determination to put this wrong right, and, as with many issues, he approaches it not only with compassion
	but with the aim of ensuring that we do the right thing. This is doing the right thing by these veterans, to whom we owe a huge debt. I congratulate him on his stance and I will look with hope at the other work he is doing on retrospection. I accept that there are difficulties with that and I would not expect solutions tomorrow, but I take his commitment at least to look at retrospection. On the happy note that this is moving in the right direction, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9
	 — 
	Homosexual acts no longer to constitute grounds for discharging a member of HM armed forces (No. 2)

‘(1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 146(4), omit the words “discharging a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces from the service or” and the words “or, in the case of a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces, where the act occurs in conjunction with other acts or circumstances,”.
	(3) In section 147(3), omit the words “discharging a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces from the service or” and the words “or, in the case of a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces, where the act occurs in conjunction with other acts or circumstances,”.’—(Mr Kevan Jones.)
	This amendment removes the provisions applying to the armed forces from sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Kevan Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	New clause 9 attempts—I referred to this in the Select Committee—to remove redundant legislation from the statute book. Sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 contain provisions relating to a homosexual act constituting grounds for discharge from the armed services. The Act repealed a provision relating to male homosexual acts and the armed forces in the Sexual Offences Act 1967.
	Clearly, that has been superseded by the fact that homosexuality in itself is not now grounds, thankfully, for being dismissed from the armed services, but the legislation referring to the armed forces remains on the statute book. I am not for one minute suggesting that anyone involved in a homosexual or heterosexual act in the course of their service should not be disciplined or could not be dismissed, but people think that it is discriminatory, and I agree, that the Act refers to homosexual acts, and not heterosexual acts in any way.
	That legislation is redundant because we have moved, rightly, to ensure that members of our armed forces are not judged by their sexuality. My aim in the Select Committee and today is to find a mechanism—and I accept what the Minister said about the way forward—to take the provision off the statute book. It clearly discriminates against homosexuality, has no place on the statute book and serves no useful purpose.

Martin Docherty: I associate SNP Members with the comments of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) about the redundancy of this provision. On a personal level, I am shocked that it is still there and that homosexual members of the armed forces should be seen differently from heterosexual members of the armed forces who might be having sexual relations. Strangely enough, that seems to be a human element of sexual relations: they happen to people, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual, and no law is going to prohibit that. I want to ensure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that those on the SNP Benches fully support the new clause. We hope that the Minister will again reflect on what has been said and seek a way to take this forward.

Kirsten Oswald: I agree entirely with the comments of my hon. Friend. It was positive in the Select Committee to hear the universal support for the repeal of this archaic and discriminatory provision. I understand that the current law has not actually been enforced for many years, and I realise that repealing the provision is out of scope for us today. However, I join my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) in urging the Government to find a way to deal with the issue, and to do so with some urgency. It is unacceptable that, albeit unused, this provision remains. In 2015, we are better than that as a society, and our armed forces deserve the framework they operate within to reflect that and the fact that the provision is unacceptable and derogatory.

Mark Lancaster: I have much sympathy with the basis for this new clause. Sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 are clearly redundant. They have no practical effect and their existence is inconsistent with the Department’s policy on homosexuality within Her Majesty’s armed forces and the Government’s equality and discrimination policies more generally. We are very proud in the MOD of the significant progress that has been made over a comparatively short time in respect of support for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender staff. Since changes were made to the law in 2000 to allow homosexual men, lesbians and transgender personnel to serve openly in the armed forces, we have taken many positive steps. All three services now feature in Stonewall’s top 100 employers list.
	We continue to engage widely to benchmark our activities in support of our LGBT staff, to ensure that we are doing as much as we can. In celebration of this year’s London Pride, the rainbow flag was flown over the MOD main building for the first time, while over 200 service personnel and MOD civil servants marched together.
	It is clear, therefore, that this redundant piece of legislation in no way reflects the position of today’s armed forces, or indeed the position of the merchant navy, which is also included in those provisions. We would wish to repeal the legislation for both groups, but that is not possible in this Bill as the merchant navy falls under the auspices of the Department for Transport.
	I am keen to repeal this legislation as soon as possible, and will undertake to update the House on this matter on Report. I have also discussed this with my colleagues in the Department for Transport, who echo the intent to review this legislation with regard to the merchant navy as soon as possible. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) to withdraw his new clause.

Kevan Jones: What we have had today is what we had in the Select Committee: universal agreement that this is not only redundant legislation, but is discriminatory and should not be on the statute book. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to look at finding a way to remove this. He has said he will report back on Report, and that will stop people pushing it off into a siding. I look forward to the Minister coming back with a way of changing this not only for the armed forces but, through the Department for Transport, for members of the merchant navy. With those comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule agreed to.
	Title
	Amendment made: 2, line2, after “discipline;” insert
	“to make provision about war pensions committees established under section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989;”.—(Mark Lancaster.)
	The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	Bill, as amended, reported.
	Bill to be considered tomorrow.

Welfare Cap

Shailesh Vara: I beg to move,
	That, pursuant to the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Summer Budget 2015 update, which was approved by this House on 14 October 2015, under Section 1 of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, this House agrees that the breach of the Welfare Cap in 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 resulting from the decision not to pursue proposed changes to tax credits, as laid out in the Autumn Statement 2015, is justified and that no further debate will be required in relation to this specific breach.
	The motion is about the Government accounting to Parliament and the public for decisions about welfare spending. It is something we on this side of the House take very seriously. That is why in 2013 the Chancellor announced we would be bringing forward a welfare cap to control welfare spending in a way that has never been done before. The cap would be set shortly after each new Parliament and assessed each year by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. Any breach of the cap requires my Department to come to the House to set out one of three courses of action. The first would be to propose measures to reduce welfare spending to within the level of the cap. The second would be to seek the approval of the House to increase the level of the cap. The third would be to explain why a breach of the cap was justified. The House will be aware that, following the Chancellor’s autumn statement, the cap is forecast not to be met in the short term. The motion seeks agreement that this is justified.

Ian Lavery: Even this early in the debate, the Minister is saying that he is going to justify breaching the cap. Is he not somewhat embarrassed about that?

Shailesh Vara: Not at all. If the hon. Gentleman will give me time, I will explain the justification. He will be aware that there has been a huge amount of debate on this issue, and that the Chancellor has listened.

Ian Lavery: I must have missed that.

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Gentleman obviously did.
	In making our case, I want to set out the circumstances that have led to this forecast. The cap was initially set in line with the OBR’s March 2014 forecast. In the summer Budget, the Chancellor set a lower welfare cap to help to reflect our move to a lower-tax, lower-welfare and higher-wage economy. Since then, as part of the autumn statement, the Chancellor took the decision not to pursue proposed changes to tax credits. This will give families longer to adjust as we make work pay and provide better support for people in work.
	This change has been possible partly because of improvements in the nation’s finances, including improved tax receipts and lower debt interest payments. These are not free choices, however, and as a result of this change, we will be spending more in the shorter term than had been forecast in the summer Budget. That means that, based on current forecasts, the cap will not be met for the next three years: 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19.

Ian Lavery: The Chancellor stood up and said that he was proud to have these targets set in stone. He tried to set a trap for the Labour party on this issue, but he wanted the benefits cap set in stone. The Minister is now explaining that, for the next two or three years, there is no chance of meeting those targets. Please tell us that you are slightly embarrassed or concerned.

Natascha Engel: Order. I am not embarrassed or concerned. The Minister might be, but I am not.

Shailesh Vara: If we are talking about embarrassment, perhaps it is the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), along with those on the Opposition Front Bench, who ought to be embarrassed. They ought to be embarrassed about the millions of people who lived in misery because they were forced to become unemployed. They ought to be embarrassed because, under Labour, the welfare cap was out of control. They ought to be pleased that this Government have the guts to take the difficult decisions to bring the welfare cap back under control.

Owen Smith: It is Christmas, and I think the Minister would like to know that his Government have won first prize for being the first Government ever to breach £1 trillion in welfare spending over five years. That is £130 billion more than the Labour Government spent in their last five years. You have won the prize!

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Gentleman speaks of Christmas spirit. In that spirit, perhaps he would like to apologise to the House on behalf of his party for the mess that it left us. Perhaps he would like to apologise to the people out there—yes, the public—who endured misery and ended up being unemployed under Labour’s policies. Perhaps he would like to apologise to the taxpayers for letting the welfare budget get completely out of control. As a result, we are having to take the tough decisions. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) if he would like to apologise. [Interruption.] I have given him the opportunity to apologise but he would rather not do so.

Heidi Allen: On the subject of Christmas, I would just encourage all of us, please, to remember that there are people at the heart of these decisions, and this should not be the moment for political footballs. We are here to say that things have changed and that our view, policies and outlook have changed. I implore every Member in this House to remember that we are speaking on behalf of people, not our own personal political agendas.

Shailesh Vara: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and let me put on the record the fact that it is our welfare programme that is improving people’s lives. It is no bad thing occasionally to ask the people who created the mess to apologise. I think the public outside would welcome an apology, because they have had to endure quite a lot of misery as a consequence of the people who took the decisions earlier on. She makes a good point when she says that people are watching, but I would also say to her that those people want an apology. I make no apology to the House for requesting that apology from the Opposition.

Owen Smith: rose—

Shailesh Vara: I will give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to apologise. He needs to apologise and I will give him that opportunity.

Owen Smith: I rise in the spirit of the intervention made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) and to say that I absolutely welcome the decision by the Government today to breach the welfare cap in order to reverse-ferret on the cut for 3 million recipients of tax credits—low-wage workers right across Britain. It is an excellent thing the Government have done and we will be fully supportive of it. I hope that she will be supportive of us when we call for a similar reversal on universal credit work allowances.

Shailesh Vara: The House will have noted, as will the people who are watching at home, that still we have no apology.
	The Government are determined to continue the work that we have done to date and to honour the mandate from the British people at the general election, so that we can tackle welfare dependency and fix the nation’s finances. Despite this short-term additional spending, we have made sure that, through our welfare reforms, the cap will be met later in this Parliament—by 2019-20. Let me be clear: the Government are committed to the welfare cap, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that the cap is met in the medium term. The OBR also forecasts that welfare spending within the cap will fall as a proportion of GDP from 6% to 5% over the welfare cap period. That is a fall of 1%, in line with the 1% fall forecast at the summer Budget. By 2019-20, therefore, we will still achieve the £12 billion a year welfare savings that we said we would achieve—

Owen Smith: rose—

Shailesh Vara: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have given him plenty of opportunity to apologise, and he is not doing what the nation wants. If he is not going to do that, he needs to sit quietly and contemplate what policies his party is going to produce. On policies, it is worth noting that he, along with the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), actually supported the measure that introduced this cap, as did several other welfare Cabinet Ministers when Labour was in government, so it is ironic that they now seek to make cheap political points. As I say, by 2019-20 we will have achieved our £12 billion welfare savings. That is what we pledged at the election, that is what the public gave us a mandate for and that is exactly what we will deliver. We can do this because of the permanent savings that we have already made and the long-term reforms that we are making.
	The simple fact is that Labour completely overspent on welfare during its 13 years in power. Under Labour, welfare spending went up by almost 60% and the benefits system cost every household an extra £3,000 a year. Spending on tax credits increased by 330%. That is £24 billion—

Emily Thornberry: You are still spending more than us.

Shailesh Vara: The Labour party is a little slow in hearing, so I will repeat the figure for the Opposition’s benefit: £24 billion. We had a welfare system that did not incentivise work and left some people getting more in benefits than they would in work. That was not fair to the hard-working taxpayers who paid for it and it certainly was not fair to those who had become dependent on the state, with no hope for a brighter future. What did Labour have to show after all that spending? Nearly one in five households had no one working. The number of households in which no one had ever worked had nearly doubled. Some 1.4 million people had been on benefits for most of the previous decade, and close to half of all households in the social rented sector had no one in work. Ever more spending on welfare just is not the answer.
	We were right to bear down and get a grip of a welfare bill that was simply out of control. The introduction of the cap has brought greater scrutiny and challenge around welfare spending, and that is the way forward. The Chancellor said that he would listen on tax credits, and he has. This one-nation Government are determined to move to a lower tax, lower welfare and higher wage economy. We are doing so in a way that ensures families have more time to adjust to the changes. I commend the motion to the House.

Owen Smith: Let me start by wishing a very merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) and all the Ministers on the replete Front Bench, especially the Secretary of State who I had hoped would be leading the debate today. Indeed, I had hoped that it might be the Chancellor, because I seem to recall—

Shailesh Vara: rose—

Owen Smith: I will certainly give way. I had not really started, but the hon. Gentleman can carry on.

Shailesh Vara: For the record, the reason why I am addressing this debate is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was chairing a Cabinet meeting, and he arrived after I had started speaking, and the record will show that.

Owen Smith: I was here in the Chamber, and I saw the Secretary of State arrive just before the Minister rose to speak. While we are on the subject, perhaps the Minister can clear up this matter. He said to us on Monday at Department for Work and Pensions questions that the Secretary of State had visited a food bank. We submitted a parliamentary question to the Minister asking when that occasion had taken place. The interesting answer—in truth it was a slightly slippery answer—was that Ministers, not the Secretary of State, have attended lots of things, including food banks. I gather there is another question. Perhaps he could tell us when the Secretary of State went to a food bank. [Interruption.] Clearly, he does not want to say.
	As I was saying before the Minister intervened on me, it was a year ago when, to a packed House, the Chancellor unveiled his latest wheeze, the welfare cap. He had a mile-wide smirk on his face like one of the famous cats from his Cheshire constituency. He was positively purring as he laid down what he thought would be a trap for a future Labour Chancellor. He said:
	“The welfare cap marks an important moment in the development of the British welfare state…and ensures that never again can the costs spiral out of control”.—[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 374 and 381.]
	He wanted Labour Members to stand up
	“and say exactly what they think of the welfare cap, and tell us that they support it, and that they should have introduced it when they were in office. They look such a cheery bunch.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 380.]
	Well, we are cheery this afternoon, as we look for the soles of the feet of the Cheshire cat Chancellor who has carelessly and ignominiously fallen into his own welfare cat trap. It is less a case of being hoisted by his own petard, as slipping on his own smirk. Where is he today to answer these questions? A year ago, he was insistent that it would be he who would be called to account in this House for the breach in the welfare cap. He said in the same debate:
	“The charter makes clear what will happen if the welfare cap is breached. The Chancellor—
	not the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions or one of his Ministers, but the Chancellor—
	“must come to Parliament, account for the failure of public expenditure control, and set out the action that will be taken to address the breach.” —[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 380.]
	But cometh the hour, there is no sign of the cat. He has disappeared. Even the smirk has disappeared.

Chloe Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten us about where the shadow Chancellor is—or does he disagree with him?

Owen Smith: I am sure that the shadow Chancellor is up to some extremely important business. Ostensibly, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is meant to account for this on behalf of the Chancellor—talk about adding insult to injury or rubbing salt in the wounds, not only has his budget been raided to pay for the embarrassing reversal on tax credits and the breach of the welfare cap, but he was asked to come here to explain it to the House. I do not blame him for one minute for deciding to attend a really important Cabinet Committee instead of coming to the House to explain about the welfare cap.

Iain Duncan Smith: rose—

Owen Smith: Oh, I am delighted.

Iain Duncan Smith: As it is Christmas and I want to help the hon. Gentleman out as much as I can, because he is clearly floundering—[Interruption.] Well, he is floundering, and I do not want him to, because it would be bad for his reputation. I actually trust and support my Ministers. I believe that every one of them is capable of doing the debate better than the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he would like to trust his shadow Ministers as well sometime.

Owen Smith: I would trust my shadow Ministers with my life. However, I thought that this was a very important subject. I thought that the welfare cap was one of those things that—what did I say earlier on?—was a great step forward in the British welfare state. I thought that the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions should respond, and I cannot understand for a minute why the right hon. Gentleman wanted his junior Minister to do this belittling debate. The shadow Chancellor is not here. He has disappeared, much like the Cheshire cat—better than that, like Macavity the cat.

Shailesh Vara: You mean the Chancellor.

Owen Smith: I know, okay, the Chancellor: the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), in Cheshire—the Cheshire cat—and given that he is rather like Macavity, rather than the Cheshire cat, I thought that I would give the House a treat. I read that there were no Etonians on the Front Bench among the new intake, and I was worried that the lack of classical education from which the Treasury Bench normally benefits might mean that the Macavity reference went over Ministers’ heads, so I brought a little book with me, and I shall read a section from it. [Interruption.] It is not Mao; it is T.S. Eliot’s collected poems. It gives us Macavity the mystery cat, who is, of course, the Chancellor:
	there’s no one like Macavity…
	he’s very tall and thin;
	You would know him if you saw him, for his eyes are sunken in—
	I think that is the 5:2 diet—
	He’s outwardly respectable
	although
	(They say he cheats at cards.)—
	I bet he does—
	And when the larder’s looted, or the jewel-case is rifled…
	He always has an alibi, and one or two to spare:
	At whatever time the deed took place—MACAVITY WASN’T THERE!
	Macavity is not here today, is he? And the deed that he is ducking, of course, is this embarrassing, humiliating U-turn. The cap has been breached, and the Government have done it, of course, because of the spectacular, screeching U-turn on tax credits.

Ian Lavery: If my hon. Friend—he is a really good friend of mine—had done what the Chancellor has done in promising that the welfare cap would not be breached, would he have sat there and done nothing? I am sure that he would have been prepared to stand at the Dispatch Box, have the courage of his convictions and perhaps apologise.

Owen Smith: I would have been mortified had I been the Chancellor responsible for such a terrible U-turn and such an extraordinary, humiliating, screeching U-turn.

Simon Hoare: Again, in this great spirit of festive tidings, let me say that if that is really the best that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman can do on such an important issue, he and his party really have not got a cat in hell’s chance of ever being back in government.

Owen Smith: I thought I was doing rather better than that. I thought the House might enjoy a bit of Christmas spirit.
	The real crime that Macavity is hiding from today is not the breach of the welfare cap, however embarrassing that may be. The real larder that has been looted is universal credit. Opening the debate, the Minister said several times that the Government would meet the welfare cap in 2019-20 and he is right that the OBR confirms that, but he signally failed to tell the House how they would do it. I suspect that that is because of the other reason that the Secretary of State did not wish to address the House today. We know precisely how he will meet the cap: through the £10 billion cut to the work allowance that we will see by 2020; a cut of £3 billion a year, nearly making up for the £3 billion that was to be taken away in tax credits, butchering the work incentives that are supposed to make universal credit worth while.
	Who are the victims of this crime? The Secretary of State is for one, because he has had his budget raided once more—the seventh time, I believe. However, the true victims are the millions of constituents in Labour and Tory seats who will still lose thousands of pounds as a result of the Chancellor’s cut to universal credit. Some 500,000 people will be on UC by next April, and according to the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2.6 million households will lose £1,600 by 2020. They are the victims of this crime, the people who are paying for the Chancellor’s hubris with £3 billion of their own money in 2020 and every year thereafter. They are the people being fleeced by the postcode lottery that is being created in support for low-wage workers, whereby those lucky enough to stay on tax credits will be massively better off than their neighbours on universal credit.
	A single mother working full-time on the new national minimum wage with two children will be £2,981 worse off than another mother, perhaps living next door in precisely the same circumstances but still on tax credits. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says from a sedentary position, “What about child care?” Yes, if that mother has children who are three or four, she may be better off, but if her children are one, five, seven or 12, they will not be. That is the reality and we should not be misleading the House, from a sedentary position or otherwise.
	That disparity cannot be fair and cannot be right. It may not even be legal. We are seeking advice as to the legality of that move. I suspect that is not what the Chancellor told the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) or other Tory Back Benchers when he reassured them that he was making good the tax credit cut, even if it meant breaching the welfare cap.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is making some important points. Is it the case—I have seen the suggestion that it may well be—that the small number of people who are currently receiving universal credit will see the enormous reductions in their income that were to have been imposed on tax credit recipients? There has been a U-turn on tax credits, but is it the case that those who are getting universal credit will be hit?

Owen Smith: I think that is precisely the case. My right hon. Friend is right. There are currently around 140,000 recipients of tax credits, not all of whom get the work component; we do not know that precise number—it may be around 40,000. There are predicted to be 500,000 people, on the Government’s own numbers, in that circumstance by next April. When I put it to the Secretary of State at Work and Pensions questions last week that those people would lose out precisely as my right hon. Friend suggested, he said that the flexible support grant would more than make up for those losses.
	I have looked at the flexible support grant and, as far as I can see, it is a £69 million grant that is available to local Jobcentre Plus managers to help people who are close to the workplace, perhaps for a new suit or a ticket to get on the bus to the interview. Even if it were permissible to use the money in that way, £69 million would in no way make up for the £100 million shortfall next year, the £1.2 billion shortfall the year after, and certainly not the £3.2 billion shortfall in 2020. It is impossible, and I fear it is also misleading for the public.
	I will bet a pound to a penny that the Secretary of State and the Chancellor did not also mention that offsetting the cuts to universal credit will hit precisely the same Tory and Labour constituents just before the next election, in 2019-20. I would also wager that they still do not appreciate that the Chancellor cannot U-turn on this issue. The reverse ferret is not available any longer, because if he does not make good his promise to make those cuts to universal credit, he will not be able to keep the promise that the Minister just made again on maintaining the welfare cap in 2020, and he will certainly not be able to deliver his other promise of a £10 billion budget surplus in the same year.
	Perhaps the lesson we should all take from today’s U-turn on the welfare cap, snuck in shamefacedly at the fag end of the Parliament, is that no one should take this Chancellor’s traps and tricks, his games and gimmicks, terribly seriously any more. He can meet them or breach them—he does not mind which, because what he is really about is not sound management of the public finances but the political games of public schoolboys. That is why he cut universal credit seven times before it had even started, making a mockery of any claims to make work pay or support for the low-paid. That is why he continues with his fantastical claims, repeated by the Minister, that welfare spending is under control, even as the housing benefit bill went up by £30 billion in the previous Parliament, and even as Ministers breached £1 trillion on welfare spending for the first time.
	We will back the Government in voting to secure Labour’s demand to reverse the tax credit cuts, and we will continue to press them for the same reversal for the victims of universal credit. But we should not pay too much attention to the Chancellor’s tricks and traps in future, because his flagrant breach of the welfare cap, deemed so essential just a few months ago, has exposed the true extent of his stunts. The welfare trap has caught him. Eliot’s detectives could not catch Macavity, but he has been rumbled.

Ian Blackford: In the spirit of the season, let me congratulate Tory Front Benchers on recognising the futility of having passed legislation a year ago and now agreeing with the SNP’s position that the benefits cap was wrong.
	The breach of the welfare cap prompts the question of what is the point of it if it can be exceeded within its first year. I remind the House that in 2014 the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
	“The welfare cap brings responsibility, accountability and fairness…From now on, any Government who want to spend more on welfare will have to be honest with the public—honest about the costs—and secure the approval of Parliament in order to breach the cap.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 381.]
	He will have to eat his own words. To save his blushes, he should abandon this inflexible, unworkable, draconian policy and focus on tackling the root causes of welfare dependency at source.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that this is an example of the cap working. The Government have had to explain why they have had to do this, and explain the context of the changes announced in the autumn statement. That is absolutely right and proper, and he should support the Government.

Ian Blackford: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Of course we will support the Government tonight, but the fact remains that we should not be having this debate because the cap should not have existed in the first place.
	We have to recognise that social security protects the poorest and the vulnerable in our society, but we do not do that through these false measures, which is exactly what this is.

Alberto Costa: In his festive mood, the hon. Gentleman has perhaps forgotten what the good people of Scotland said earlier this year, so it is worth reminding him. A Survation poll in Scotland said that a majority of its people, just like those in my constituency and across the UK, support efforts to reduce the cost of welfare, so are not he and his party out of touch with the people of Scotland?

Ian Blackford: I am truly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. Of course the Scottish National party wants to reduce the cost of welfare, but we will do that by fixing the economy, driving up productivity and creating jobs. What we should not do is punish people. While we are on the subject of the election, let me take this opportunity to remind the House that we won 56 of the 59 seats in Scotland, and we did that while standing on a platform of investing in our communities and in job creation, making sure that we did not punish people with a failed austerity programme, and arguing for investment of an additional £140 billion throughout the whole of the UK over the next five years. That responsible position would have led to the financial deficit coming down to 2% of net national income by the end of this Parliament. The people of Scotland were very happy to support that much more responsible approach, and I commend it to this House.
	Although we welcome today’s decision to breach the cap, it is apparent that the Chancellor cannot even stick to his own targets. When will this Conservative Government realise that the inflexibility of the welfare cap is unworkable and that the fact that they will breach the cap illustrates the need to abandon the policy?
	We are calling on the Chancellor to abandon the cap and instead to focus on welfare dependency by tackling the structural drivers of higher welfare spending, such as rising rents, low pay and worklessness, as well as the barriers to work. That is a much more progressive way of dealing with the problems we face in the United Kingdom. We agree that it is sensible to control welfare spending, but the Government are simply not doing that with their continued focus on the austerity agenda. The welfare cap is simply not the correct approach.
	The Chancellor of the Exchequer has chosen not to be here today. I am grateful to the Minister for speaking earlier, but he is here, cap in hand, to seek our support for the Government breaching their own rules and missing yet another target.

Alison Thewliss: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that the Chancellor is absent and the Work and Pensions Secretary was late, perhaps they ought to be sanctioned?

Ian Blackford: Indeed. Perhaps Opposition Members could handle the appeal—let us see how they would get on in such circumstances. I have some sympathy for the Minister, though, because it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who ought to be answerable to the House on this issue.
	Of course, the Chancellor has form when it comes to missing targets. Let us remind ourselves that the Government have spectacularly missed their targets for the budget deficit and for net debt. We were supposed to be in the black by now, but with growth and tax receipts in particular consistently coming in below target, the deficit and debt have remained above target. We must pose the question: when will the Government learn that their false optimism has a price, and that price is the cuts to budgets as they seek to balance the books?
	On the autumn statement, the Office for Budget Responsibility managed to magic up an additional £27 billion of forecast revenues—talk about a sleight of hand to dig the Chancellor out of another hole of his own making. We know that the OBR has a history of over-estimating tax receipts. The respected Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said of the Chancellor’s plans:
	“If he is unlucky—and that’s almost a 50-50 shot—he will have either to revisit these spending decisions, raise taxes, or abandon the surplus target.”
	Talk about having form. If I may use some football terminology, I would not want the Chancellor to take a last-minute penalty for my team in a cup final—he would only miss the target. Own goals are much more the Chancellor’s speciality.
	Why am I raising these matters? It is because social security spending is linked to the failure to deliver a robust economy, drive up tax receipts and limit the need for the safety net that social security provides. That is why the welfare cap is wrong: it does not deal with the cause of, or the need for, welfare.
	The disastrous policy—made in No. 11 Downing Street—of punishing millions of hard-working families by reducing tax credits and thereby dramatically cutting the income of lower-paid workers has, thankfully, been reversed. If the benefit cap is breached as a consequence of sense prevailing, we should be grateful. We are mindful, however, of the fact that although the vindictive impact of the tax credit cuts has been avoided, there will be pain in years to come because the Government are still wedded to reducing the social security budget by £12 billion, with universal credit bearing the brunt.
	We are not fooled by the Chancellor’s words that this is a reversal of the Tory ideological assault on the most disadvantaged. He announced that he would, in effect, spend £3.4 billion in 2016-17 to reverse the changes to the threshold and the taper rate, but it is important to note that the planned reductions in tax credits for families with more than two children will still apply. Ian Mulheirn of Oxford Economics said that
	“this may be a U-turn in April 2016, but it doesn’t look like a U-turn by 2020.”
	I want to point out that the IFS estimates that cuts in universal credit will mean that 2.6 million working families will be an average of £1,600 a year worse off.
	The continued lack of ambition by the Tory Government to take fiscal responsibility means that alternative action must be taken in Scotland to put off the impact of the austerity we are now facing. I am glad that the Scottish Government have taken measures, as they have in their budget today, to protect the people of Scotland. The Institute for Public Policy Research, an independent think-tank, has found that low-income families in Scotland will face a reduction in income of more than £800 by 2020 as a result of UK Government cuts, but the richest 40% will see an increase in income as a result of the tax cuts.
	We are in this situation not because of structural issues with social security, but simply because we have not been able to drive sustainable growth to a level that would drive job creation and, crucially, raise real wages, which is the best way of curtailing the demand for social security. We cannot fix the problem of poverty in our country by cutting social security, particularly in-work benefits, but we can do so by creating the circumstances that allow people to find meaningful employment, and in doing so work the hours that will assist them to put food on the table and to heat their homes.

Heidi Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on one of the elements of universal credit, which is that it is not just an IT system but an entire way for people to work with a mentor and somebody in the jobcentre who will assist them to build a life of better employment and higher wages? That is what he should be talking about if he wants to get people out of poverty.

Ian Blackford: Absolutely. We fully support that: we want people to be able to move out of poverty and into meaningful work that is well paid, where the social security system will support them. We would happily support some reforms, but problems remain in relation to the level of sanctions and the cuts to universal credit that will happen over the next few years.

Ian Lavery: The real issue concerns in-work benefits and people who are in work. The Sports Direct model is failing, but the Conservatives are not prepared to get stuck into the likes of Sports Direct and of Mike Ashley. They believe that that is a fantastic model of employment, but it is not acceptable.

Ian Blackford: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need to deal with low pay in our economy. The only way to do so is to have a real debate about how to drive up productivity in this country, and about how to tackle companies that are abusing the minimum wage. Such companies must be held to account for what has happened.
	We often hear from the Government and their myriad Back Benchers about a mythical long-term economic plan. I say “mythical” because it is a meaningless soundbite, and we are left asking, “Where is the detail? Where is the substance?” If there is a long-term economic plan to benefit workers, a core theme must be a rise in productivity that will help to drive up wages and living standards sustainably. The hon. Gentleman has just made that point.
	Let us look at what the OBR said in its publication on the day of the autumn statement:
	“Although actual productivity growth has picked up in the latest two quarters, some of this has been cyclical or reflects broader temporary factors… But since it is difficult to explain the abrupt fall and persistent weakness of productivity in recent years, it is also hard to judge when or if productivity growth will sustainably return to its historical average.”
	It is well worth dwelling on that. It can be paraphrased as the OBR saying that it has not got a clue why productivity in the UK has been so weak in the past few years. It is certainly the case that the Government do not have a clue. I would suggest that they have no clue and no strategy for driving up productivity in the UK economy and for dealing with our social security bill.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) famously quoted from his little red book and then tossed it at the Chancellor during the autumn statement. However, it is not that red book that should concern us, but the stark reality of what is contained in the OBR Blue Book that offers little comfort for many in this country. We will support this motion, but we should not be having this debate because we should not have a benefits cap. We need a meaningful long-term economic plan, not Government gimmicks and soundbites.

Greg Mulholland: I welcome this U-turn. Sometimes, it is right to accept that one is wrong and has made a mistake. I commend the Government on doing so on this issue.
	I also commend all those who took part in what was very much a cross-party campaign, in which all the Opposition parties and some Government Back Benchers worked together. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) for the courageous way in which she spoke out, which was noticed around the country and did this place a real service.
	I also pay tribute to the other place. Although I will always campaign for that House to be abolished in its current form and replaced, finally, with a wholly elected Chamber, which is what we should have in this country and the only justifiable way to run a modern democracy, it did show that it has a role to play in this Parliament. I commend my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place, who made it clear that they would speak and vote against the tax credit cut. That was crucial in leading to the U-turn.
	As a liberal as well as a Liberal Democrat, I will always be extremely proud that it was the great, reforming Liberal Government of 1906 to 1914 that brought in the very welfare state that we are discussing. That is a great achievement of my party.
	However, we accepted in our five years in coalition, in difficult financial circumstances, that the welfare state had got out of control and was no longer sufficiently focused on those who needed it. I was a member of the Work and Pensions Committee for five years and that Committee, which had members from all parties, was entirely clear that there was a disincentive to work and that too many people were incentivised to be on benefits, rather than to work. I am very proud that, in the five years of the coalition, we did a lot to tackle that.

Ian Blackford: Will the hon. Gentleman remind us how the Liberal Democrats voted when the welfare cap came before Parliament last year?

Greg Mulholland: I am very happy to. As usual, the contribution from the SNP Benches contained the usual milk and honey, promising everything to everyone and not taking any difficult decisions. In the end, even in Scotland, the shine will come off and people will start to see the reality of the false veneer of the Scottish National party. That is something that the rest of us will welcome.
	I am not even sure that the hon. Gentleman knows what he is talking about. There are two different issues: the household benefit cap and the welfare cap. He seemed to confuse and conflate the two things. We absolutely supported the household benefit cap, which was brought in under the coalition, because it is entirely right and all our constituents support not having a situation in which a single household can take an unlimited amount in benefits, when hard-working families are unable to raise the same amount. The welfare cap is an entirely different thing. It seeks to control the amount of money that the Treasury allocates to welfare as a whole. He does not seem to understand the distinction, which is worrying, given his position.

Dawn Butler: There is increasing evidence that this policy will cost the public purse more. Is it not a false economy?

Greg Mulholland: I am absolutely clear that there have been changes to the benefits system that were mistaken, including under the last Government, and I said so at the time. However, I absolutely support the household benefit cap. I do agree, however, that we need a sensible approach, and we must incentivise work and focus social security on those who need it. Those of us who believe passionately in the welfare state—I am sure the hon. Lady does, as do I—must be able to justify it and show that it is helping people who cannot work or are unable to find work. That must be the focus, but it has not been previously.
	I am sure the hon. Lady will agree that some of the changes brought in by this Conservative majority Government, without the Liberal Democrats to restrain them, have been mistaken and ideological, particularly the cap on child benefit on the basis of the number of children that someone has, regardless of circumstance. We opposed and stopped such measures, but now people are seeing what a Conservative majority Government with an ideological policy, as opposed to a pragmatic one, will do.
	We welcome the fact that the right decision was made on tax credits, and on this occasion it is right to be prepared to breach the welfare cap. In other years we would like that cap to be adhered to, but given current circumstances and the projections for what the change to tax credits will do, this is the right decision, and those on the Treasury Bench should not be criticised for being prepared to breach the welfare cap for that reason in this financial year. That would be playing politics with this issue in the way that the Chancellor did with his ideological nonsense of the fiscal charter, when he sought to stop the Treasury having the flexibility that any Chancellor—and in this case the Secretary of State—must have.
	We welcome this U-turn and fully accept the need to breach the welfare cap this year. We hope that the Government will live within their means in future years, but not by balancing the budget on the backs of the poor. We will continue to take a pragmatic approach and oppose anything that we believe is draconian, ideologically driven and unfair. At the same, we hope that the Government will continue in the same vein as the coalition Government, by incentivising people to work, and by getting more people into work with fewer people on benefits. As a civilised society we must ensure that our welfare state continues to help people who are unable to work or who genuinely cannot find it. That is our position and we will continue to make that case.

Mark Durkan: As someone who voted against the welfare cap when it was introduced and whenever it was reset, I am happy that the Government are trying to relax the original level of that cap. During the Budget statement in July, the Chancellor revised the welfare cap figures that he announced in the spring. He reduced that cap over four financial years by £46 billion, to include changes to tax credits and some of the other changes to universal credit that have been mentioned, and for that reason we would have opposed the measure.
	As we have heard, the welfare cap is a fairly political argument. It has its origin in the opposition of Labour Members to the benefit cap in the Welfare Reform Act 2012, and they came under some pressure for that. At one point, the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), announced that he would do better than a benefits cap and introduce a welfare cap on the overall budget. We could see the lights go on for the Chancellor of the Exchequer who decided, “That will do nicely. We’ll go for a welfare cap as well.” He proceeded to set up his working group to consider that, on the basis, he said, that annually managed expenditure is not managed but needs to be in future. That is how the welfare cap was introduced, and that is why the then Opposition were trapped into voting for it, whereas some of the smaller parties—and some Labour Back Benchers—felt free to vote against it.
	When the welfare cap was introduced it was bubble-wrapped as a neutral budgetary tool, but many of us recognised that it would end up being brandished as a weapon for cuts, and that is exactly how the Chancellor used it this year in the July Budget. Of course, he was forced to revise his propositions on tax credits by a combination of opposition from right hon. and hon. Members right across the House. In fairness, some
	Government Members did not just vote against the measures but spoke against them too, making valid and pointed arguments about just some of the difficulties caused by the Chancellor’s plans. It is good that, with the range of consideration and argument outside and inside this House and in the other place, that the Chancellor had to revise his position. That is now reflected in the adjusted proposals for the welfare cap.
	The Chancellor, in his autumn statement, made it clear that he will still get to the quantum of cuts he wants to achieve. The issue is how far the welfare cap will, in itself, be used as an instrument for forcing some of those cuts. We have also yet to hear from Ministers exactly how they are going to get to that quantum. Will they need to table amendments to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill currently going through Parliament to deliver the cuts within the time the Chancellor has projected, or do they feel that they will be able to arrive at the same cuts using existing legislation? There are powers of regulation under the 2012 Act and provisions in the Bill, not least the sweeping provisions in clauses 13 and 14 that could see significant benefits—universal credit, employment and support allowance, and the work-related activity group—disappear or be very heavily eroded. If the Government still intend to arrive at the quantum of £12 billion of cuts in terms of the welfare cap, how do they propose to deliver it?
	That matters in the context of Northern Ireland. If the cuts are to be delivered under existing legislation or the Bill, the fact that direct rule powers are in the hands of Department for Work and Pensions and Northern Ireland Office Ministers means that the cuts will be put through under the sunset clause which will be exercised here up until the end of the next calendar year. We have the right to ask: what future cuts will go through under existing legislation and the Bill, and what would require further reductions in future?
	We did not get clarification on welfare measures during the passage of the Scotland Bill, or on other occasions when we have asked Ministers about this more informally. Will the Minister clarify whether the welfare spending that can be undertaken by the Scottish Government of £2.7 billion—the last figure I heard—will count as part of the UK welfare cap, or is that absolutely outside the UK welfare cap? Is that a precedent for other factors? Ministers have been unable to address that point.
	In welcoming the Government’s position today, I take no comfort from it. Their original intent to use the welfare cap as a cuts weapon is still there. I want clarification on their plans for the Bill. Will they table amendments to achieve further cuts, or do they believe that they can achieve the full £12 billion as the clauses currently stand?

Marie Rimmer: The 1997 to 2010 Labour Government paid off more debt than any previous Government on record—debt left by the Conservative Government. We always know when Conservative Members’ arguments are weak, because they come out with the mantra about the financial mess left by the Labour Government. The financial mess was created and started in America with Lehman Brothers.
	They use that—
	[
	Interruption
	.
	]
	This really doesn’t bother me, because I don’t hear what they’ve got to say.—
	[
	Interruption.
	]

Eleanor Laing: Order.

Iain Duncan Smith: It’s Christmas.

Eleanor Laing: Order. It would appear that it is Christmas. I hope the House has not been attending too many Christmas parties. We behave in a reasonable and polite fashion. If anybody needs to be told to be quiet, I can do that.

Marie Rimmer: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mark Spencer: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Marie Rimmer: No. The hon. Gentleman will wait until I have had my say.
	The financial crisis was caused by the Lehman Brothers in America and started in 2008. Had Labour been returned to power—had someone not been greedy for power—we would not be in this mess today because the Conservatives would not be in power. Our strategy was actually working. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members do not like the truth.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Marie Rimmer: I will not give way until Members start to behave and listen to me.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Marie Rimmer: Sit down! I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	We always know when the Government are at their weakest, because they go on and on about the financial crisis. But let us get to the welfare cap. Of the two major cuts to in-work support in the summer Budget—to tax credits and its replacement, universal credit—only the tax credits element has been reversed. The reason we are in this state is that the Chancellor originally set the cap at a level that, in the first instance, simply tracked the Office for Budget Responsibility’s projections for spending on those benefits and tax credits that were in scope—as one of my colleagues mentioned, tax credits are in scope, which is unacceptable. The cap started in 2015-16 and extends for the next five years, meaning that, for now, the cap has no policy effect whatsoever. The Government are simply committed to operating future policy on the basis of not overshooting the current estimate of financial spending over the coming years. We could be in this position next year and the year after, because there are no real policy decisions. It is short term. It is nothing else.
	As predicted, that led to the announcement of emergency cuts, including those to tax credits, but they were resoundingly kicked out by the Lords—the Conservatives at prayer, as someone described them. Although I am not in favour of an unelected second Chamber, I applaud them for taking that action. Only the tax credits element was reversed, however, and working families remain on the front line of further assaults, such as the cap and the universal credit cuts. The latter will affect many people—more than 200,000, I think—from April 2016, and the majority of those on universal credit are in the north-west.
	They are the ones who suffer the most from unemployment and financial deprivation—much of which is caused by zero-hours contracts, insecure employment, low pay and part-time work—which is why they are on benefits.

Chloe Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Marie Rimmer: No, I want to carry on.

Owen Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Marie Rimmer: Not at the moment. Hon. Members will hear what I have to say.
	We need reforms that address the structural drivers of social security spending. We need good, secure employment; we need to get rid of zero-hours contracts and low pay; and we need to ensure an adequate supply of affordable homes.

Simon Burns: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Marie Rimmer: No. Hon. Members need to learn that I will not give way until I have had my say. [Interruption.] Yes, the House needs to know what type of woman I am.
	We need to shift the balance of expenditure from the cost of failure towards investment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) has said, the large rise in housing benefit expenditure in the 20 years before the financial crisis came at a time when the number of households receiving help to pay their rent stayed broadly flat. That should have triggered a major focus on those trends and led to serious reform of policy and spending, but it did not. As a consequence, the benefits system was extremely vulnerable to economic shocks, as large numbers of people were in more expensive private rented accommodation. When the crisis really hit in 2010-11—it came a couple of years later—housing benefit shot up, and in response we have seen a series of arbitrary attempts to hack back the costs. We have seen 14 changes to housing benefit, including the bedroom tax, which was entirely unrelated to the causes of the rising expenditure. We need to get down to the policy and the causes.
	Ministers are leaning too heavily on the political dividing-line and not enough on designing a cap that would advance structural reforms. Although it is set over five years on a rolling basis, the Government’s cap will bite on an annual basis. With the Office for Budget Responsibility warning about the overshooting of the autumn statement, we call today for compensating action in the next Budget.
	We have had emergency cuts, not long-term saving. The cap has been set in nominal cash terms. Higher expenditure, driven by inflation, will trigger policy action, which risks locking in lower living standards for those reliant on benefits. General price rises feeding through into uprating decisions do not count as a structural divide in spending. In line with consumer prices index forecasts for the coming years, the Chancellor set out a margin of error of 2%, which will not trigger action.
	The cap makes no distinction between contribution-based and income-based benefit spending, consistent with the drift of social security policy over decades, but they are different, and should be treated as such. Entitlement to contributory benefits, which are financed by national insurance contributions, should stand outside the mainstream of Government revenue and be taken out of the cap, strengthening the integrity of the national insurance fund.
	I urge the Government to backtrack on the political ideology-driven trajectory that they are on, with 80% of cuts coming from public spending and welfare and 20% from tax, and with tax cuts being provided to people who do not need them and will not spend the extra money, so it will not go into the economy and will not feature in the drive for more jobs. The Government should invest in proper affordable housing for those who need it. Never mind all these dressed-up schemes—let us have some honesty in this place and address the issues for the public out there. I think the Government are living in a virtual world; it is certainly not the world that I move in.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That, pursuant to the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Summer Budget 2015 update, which was approved by this House on 14 October 2015, under Section 1 of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, this House agrees that the breach of the Welfare Cap in 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 resulting from the decision not to pursue proposed changes to tax credits, as laid out in the Autumn Statement 2015, is justified and that no further debate will be required in relation to this specific breach.

Riot Compensation Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
	Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Riot Compensation Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act by local policing bodies, by way of compensation for damage, destruction or theft occurring in the course of riots, out of money so provided.—(Mike Penning.)

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I want to raise the modest question of why this Bill has not been introduced under Standing Order No. 50, as it seems to me that the primary purpose is a charge. For a Bill of this kind, Standing Order No. 50 is the usual process. I know it has the Government’s support, but I am puzzled that that approach has not been taken.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman raises an excellent point, which I am sure has been taken on board by those on the Treasury Bench.
	Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order 119(11)),
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 17228/13, a Commission Communication: Towards the elimination of female genital mutilation.—(Guy Opperman.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Climate Change

Chloe Smith: I rise to present a petition from students at Notre Dame high school in Norwich, which includes many signatures from across Norfolk. It contains 1,127 signatures in total.
	The petition states:
	The petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that the UK should show leadership internationally to secure fair and ambitious agreements on tackling climate change and poverty; and further that the petitioners are inspired by their Catholic faith and Pope Francis' Laudato Si.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to cut carbon emissions to keep global temperature rise below the dangerous threshold of 1.5°C, and to prevent climate change pushing people deeper into poverty.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001663]

Merger of NHS Trusts in Nottinghamshire

Robert Jenrick: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Newark in Nottinghamshire. The petition declares that the petitioners support a full merger of their NHS Trust—following a disastrous inspection report by the Care Quality Commission, and a terrible legacy from the private finance initiative—with a high-performing neighbouring trust, such as Nottingham, in order to secure the future of high quality healthcare provision in the Newark area. Furthermore, the petitioners support and will work constructively with that new trust, and furthermore, they support the hard-working doctors, nurses and staff of Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust, including those at Newark hospital.
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[The petition of residents of Newark,
	Declares that the petitioners support a full merger of their NHS Trust with a high-performing neighbouring Trust in order to secure the future of high quality healthcare 
	provision in Newark; further that the petitioners support and will work constructively with the new Trust; and further that they support the hard working doctors, nurses and staff of Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust including at Newark 
	Hospital
	.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the full merger of Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust with a neighbouring high-performing Trust.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P001665]

Mark Spencer: I wish to present a petition further to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). It, too, calls on NHS bosses to allow a takeover of Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust by a neighbouring trust. Members may be familiar with the financial issues faced by the Sherwood Forest trust, mainly as a result of a disastrous PFI deal which was signed under the Labour Government and which requires it to make repayments of nearly £1 million a week. The petition states:
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the full merger of Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust with a neighbouring high-performing Trust.
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[The petition of residents of Sherwood,
	Declares that the petitioners support a full merger of their NHS Trust with a high-performing neighbouring Trust in order to secure the future of high quality healthcare provision in Newark; further that the petitioners support and will work constructively with the new Trust; and further that they support the hard working doctors, nurses and staff of Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust including at Newark Hospital.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the full merger of Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust with a neighbouring high-performing Trust.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P001664]

East Anglia Rail Franchise

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Guy Opperman.)

Jo Churchill: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to address the House on a subject that is both timely—given that the invitation to tender will close tomorrow—and fundamentally important to the securing of economic growth and prosperity throughout East Anglia. It is a once-in-a-generation moment, and it should not be lost.
	I thank the Minister for being present to reply to this short debate. As rail Minister, she has been tireless in her support, working to find solutions to the huge challenges that we face in bringing our rail service up to the standard that is so essential to the success of a modern, accessible and mobile economy. I know that, as a regular visitor to the area, she has experienced at first hand—I will not say “enjoyed”—our historically underfunded and unreliable rail service. She has always taken time to meet, listen to and respond to the organisations, businesses and passengers whose concerns, ideas and comments are at the heart of our case for the improvement that we want.
	I also wholeheartedly thank my right hon. and hon. Friends, representing constituencies across East Anglia, who have taken the time to support me this evening. Their presence on the eve of the closure of the invitation to tender is an indication of the significance of the topic, not only for East Anglia but, I would argue, for UK plc’s growth ambitions.
	My first question in the House concerned this very issue: the quality of rail services for my constituents in Bury St Edmunds. In terms of passenger numbers, Stowmarket and Bury St Edmunds are the second and third largest stations in Suffolk, with, respectively, nearly 1 million and nearly 600,000 passenger movements a year. I have met some of those passengers at cold, blowy stations at 6 am and discussed what the current service gives them. It is not what they pay for, that is for sure. Indeed, 66% of customers in Abellio’s own survey felt that they did not get value for money.
	As a new MP I have been challenged, rightly, by my constituents to join the campaign by MPs of long standing from Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex, Cambridgeshire and lately Hertfordshire to fight for what they deserve. Only this Saturday my constituents were frustrated by rail freight trains holding up passenger services. Services are hindered by the decrepit and aged rolling stock. Ours is on average 27 years old. The national average is 20—and you never want to be older than the national average. We are also hindered in our area by the lack of reliability and frequency, by the appalling state of stations and real estate and by the lack of services. With the new franchise we must not miss the opportunity to meet some of these needs. We must rise above and exceed what the invitation to tender asked for.
	Only last week, the list of red delays between Liverpool Street and Colchester was long enough to make the timetable look like a seasonal candy cane. It does not matter from whatever angle you view the situation: having to guess your arrival time, or even whether you will arrive for work or an appointment on time is simply not fair. As a rather famous little tank engine once said, “Run my train on time” and I could not agree more.
	In November 2013 the Chancellor of the Exchequer visited our area and agreed that the Great Eastern main line rail service was not good enough and was a barrier to growth. The taskforce led by my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) has demonstrated the rail needs across three counties. In 2014 the taskforce report was accepted, highlighting, along with the issues already mentioned, overcrowding and outdated infrastructure.
	My constituents and the broader customer base using the rail service are charged too much for a rail service that is inadequate. They expect and deserve better for their money. Additionally, we need Network Rail to fulfil its commitments to the infrastructure across control periods 5 and 6. That need was confirmed in the recent Hendy report. That would contribute to faster, more reliable journey times in 10 years’ time.

Chloe Smith: My hon. Friend is making the case powerfully. The number of Members present in the Chamber shows how strongly we all feel on the issue for our constituents. I agree with her in the strongest possible terms that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. We have to align the work of Network Rail in the next 10 years with a nine-year franchise to get infrastructure improvements and new trains. That is what our passengers need.

Jo Churchill: I could not agree more. There needs to be that connected thought—that is the important thing—to allow works at the Ely North junction, for example, where there is a real need. That has been the demand by my colleagues in Cambridgeshire, but this issue also affects users in Norfolk and Suffolk. The work has already slipped from period 5 to period 6.
	Freeing up capacity is an urgent need across our dynamic growing area, so it was with disappointment that I, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich noted that the tender did not highlight a more frequent service between Ipswich and Peterborough or Ipswich and Cambridge. Indeed my right hon. Friend had a meeting with rail users only last week to press that point home.
	These critical centres need a more frequent service, as does the science corridor between Norwich and Cambridge, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who has emailed me because he cannot be here today, has campaigned. That would doubtless give huge economic benefit to the life sciences industry as well as to other businesses.

Peter Aldous: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She is giving us a great history going around the various branch lines in East Anglia. Does she agree that if investment is made in the east Suffolk line in terms of through-trains to Liverpool Street, faster service and investment in stations, that can play a significant role in bringing economic growth to east Suffolk?

Jo Churchill: I could not agree more. The beauty of delivering this tender well is that it can bring benefits across Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Essex and benefit all our constituents, who, frankly, do not care whose constituency they are travelling through; they just care about getting where they want to go on time and in a way that is easy to access.

Lucy Frazer: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she agree that, given the growth in our region and the fact that Cambridge is one of the few net contributors to the Treasury, it is essential we get the infrastructure we need? Ely is often a pinch point in infrastructure development, including the Ely North junction and the Soham-Ely doubling.

Jo Churchill: I could not agree more, because those pinch points affect such a broad area and affect the delivery of services into all our towns across the region. That is hugely important, and it was highlighted in the Hendy report.
	I ask myself whether the obvious need for greater capacity would be addressed if we were not on the eve of this franchise re-tender. Our plan, with which the Minister is very familiar, is underpinned by a solid business case that will unlock the economic potential of up to £4.5 billion based on a package of improvements costing just over one tenth of that: £476 million. It will generate some £9.50 for every pound spent, providing a cost-benefit ratio that is acknowledged to be one of the most compelling investment propositions for rail. Over the next decade the plan will deliver over £15 billion in gross value added, 184,000 homes and some 50,000 new jobs, but if nobody can move around the area—and we already have to accept that the A14, which cuts right through my constituency and which travels down to the country’s largest container port at Felixstowe, is at times overwhelmed by the traffic—we really do have a problem.
	Let me state quite clearly that we do not want to see “business as usual” being the operating criterion for the chosen bidder when those bids land tomorrow. We want change; we want transformational change at that, based on best practice from home and abroad. We want innovative thinking about some essential needs. I want those constituents of mine who are disabled, and particularly those who use a wheelchair, not to be faced with the situation where they cannot even access a train. If you live in Needham Market and you are in a wheelchair, that is it; you are not getting on that train. That is simply not good enough in 2015.
	We know that whatever is to be delivered will be some way down the track—I have tried to avoid such comments, but I may hit the buffers at times. We do not want our new rolling stock to be somebody else’s refurbs. The taskforce report was very clear: we want new rolling stock. One reason much of our stock is to be upgraded is, quite simply, that it will be illegal shortly due to its inadequacies. We do not want pacers or old tube stock either. We have made do on this line for too long.
	We have been told that with new rolling stock will come the reliability we seek. Everyone in the know says infrastructure is essential, too, including track signalling and overhead line equipment, as part of that bigger picture. But that rolling stock is essential, as the Minister knows very well from having used our service.
	Essential east-west link improvements are needed, including the Felixstowe to Nuneaton and Birmingham freight route that will link the UK’s biggest container port with the rest of the UK and take pressure off the A14. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) has campaigned tirelessly on this issue. As an aside, it seems incredible that one of the busiest ports in the UK is served by the single-track Felixstowe branch line.
	To relieve pressure on commuters, I would recommend the introduction of an hourly Ipswich to Peterborough service—which I reiterate was not stated as a requirement in the invitation to tender—and I will to add to my wish list the request that it should be increased to a half-hourly service at peak times. Improved passenger journey times, particularly in the east, are essential to optimise growth from east to west. In my constituency, we would like tomorrow to be an early start to Christmas. We have heard of Norwich in 90 and Ipswich in 60, and I am standing here today to ask you for Stowmarket in 70.

Eleanor Laing: Order. I have let the hon. Lady get away with this the first couple of times. When she says “you”, she is addressing the Chair, not the Minister. If she wishes to ask the Minister something, she must say “the hon. Lady”.

Jo Churchill: I am terribly sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; you are absolutely right. It is my enthusiasm on securing the debate and having the chance to ask the Minister to listen to my arguments. I hope that, when the bids hit her desk tomorrow, she will take this opportunity to give us what we really want for the next nine years.

Peter Aldous: Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to avoid a repetition of the situation that arose in Lowestoft last Saturday, when people could not even get on the trains? It was a day of high demand, with people going to a premier league football match between Norwich and Everton, and also going shopping in Norwich, but they could not even get on the trains.

Jo Churchill: Absolutely. That point would probably also be supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk, who has called for special trains to Newmarket on race days. We have a centre of excellence for the racing industry in Newmarket, but it cannot optimise what it could do for the country because we cannot get people there smartly enough.
	My constituents do not want to stand on trains; they want to sit. They also want to be connected to wi-fi, and maybe have a cup of coffee, but at the moment they can get neither of those services between leaving home and arriving at their main line station. They want to be able to park at their stations and shelter from the elements until the train arrives. Otherwise, they will opt to use different forms of transport. We are not talking about a third world country here.

Douglas Carswell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she agree that, regardless of who is awarded the franchise, we must also address the question of the corporate governance of Network Rail? Until that is improved, we will not see the improvements that we need.

Jo Churchill: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I am sure that it is something that the Minister will attend to.
	With the Paris summit fresh in our minds from the weekend, the provision of a better train service makes both economic and environmental sense. The frustration at the lack of frequency in the timetabling and at the poor reliability cannot and should not be underestimated by my hon. Friend the Minister. My constituents are being ill served, their journeys are being made more arduous, and the potential for growth in the towns in my region—and, more importantly, my constituency—is being thwarted by the lack of investment on the line. This all adds up to my wanting the requirements in the invitation to tender not simply to be met but to be exceeded. I fully appreciate that not everything I have asked for can be given, but I do expect the signed franchise agreement to deliver the absolute maximum punch for my constituents and everyone across East Anglia.
	The tenders will come in tomorrow, so when the Minister looks at them on Friday, she will have the opportunity to challenge the prospective operators to fill the gaps that the tender has failed to specify in the detail. If the nine years from October 2016 do not put the east in a primary position to compete in our competitive global economy, my Government will have failed to release the further potential of one of the country’s net contributors to the Treasury.
	I will finish with these words: “East Anglia is one of the fastest growing regions in the country and is establishing itself as a world leader in science, technology and manufacturing. To support this growth we need to have modern, efficient rail services and improved connections”. Those are not my words, but those of the Prime Minister in April 2014. I do not think I can beat that. I just want to see these things being delivered.

Alan Haselhurst: I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) on giving us the opportunity to emphasise the rail needs of our region and on our having had the good fortune of the extended time for debate. A clear demonstration is being made in the House by the presence of her colleagues, and we are all united in understanding how badly we feel we have been let down over the years.
	I do not want to be too hard on Department for Transport Ministers, because we have moved on considerably from a situation where the then Government took a dumbed-down approach during a previous franchise. In effect, they said to applicants, “We want you to do it cheaply.” As my hon. Friend said, new rolling stock is key, and although it is not made mandatory in the invitation to tender, it has been made clear that that is what is expected of bidders. In response to my question the other day about whether the bounty being received by two franchises in the north was a signal to what our bidders should be doing, the Secretary of State said emphatically and in a single word, “Yes.” We therefore have some cause to be hopeful and it will be appalling if we are let down on that, because the time has come.
	Strictly speaking, if we are talking of a franchise, we should be majoring on the rolling stock, because that is what the operating company is going to be primarily concerned with. My interest in the Great Eastern line is not as extensive or as long-standing as that of some other colleagues, because until boundary changes took place in 2010 I did not have a significant number of constituents who used the line—but I do now.
	We must not forget the West Anglia line, which of course serves the region’s major airport, which is described as the third London airport. It is amazing to think that even after the decision in 1985 to establish that airport on the scale that has been achieved, nothing has been done to improve the railway line. When that decision on the airport was taken, it was necessary then to build a spur track to the airport to allow some kind of service to be delivered.
	A private Bill had to be promoted by British Rail, as it was then, in order for that to happen. I followed the normal procedure in such circumstances of tabling a blocking motion. As one does, I hoped that such a motion would cause the promoter of the Bill to come to talk about what might appease me. I said that new rolling stock would, and I was told, “Fine, done.” I therefore had great expectations. That rolling stock was to have been the type 321, which now comprise a substantial part of the rolling stock on the Great Eastern line. We were deprived of it because DFT officials, and, I suspect, the Treasury behind them, had gone over things with a tape measure to see how many people could be crammed into this tube of metal. The result was that the design interior was worse in the first-class compartments than in the standard class. That became an outrage, and the whole lot had to be taken away and re-engineered. It then reappeared on the Great Eastern line, but these trains, too, are tired now.
	The rolling stock that came on the West Anglia line after that fiasco was the type 317. Type 317s do not have fitted to them what are politely called “container tanks”, and use of the lavatory on those trains is pretty crude so far as disposal is concerned. Their reliability is terrible, and the acceleration capacity of the type 321 trains is inadequate for the sort of track improvements that we can hope to get. We will not get the extra track that we need and that we would like on both rail lines—that will not come soon—so the new trains, which are needed for comfort and capacity reasons, must be able to use the advantage of crossings being taken out to take minutes off their various journeys. That is what we are looking for, and that is what the bidders must come up with.
	We can take some comfort from the fact that Crossrail 1 will come into operation in a year or two’s time, which will bring some relief to passengers on the southern end of the Great Eastern line, and there is a glimmer of hope that Crossrail 2 might also feature to build the business case for the West Anglia main line.
	As we know from experience and from what our constituents tell us, we cannot run fast trains and slow trains on a two-track system, so the relationship between the successful bidder for this franchise and the infrastructure company is crucial. One hopes that the Department will try to ensure that the relationship works better than it has done in the past. We do not want to hear, “Well, the trains were all right, but it was the points, the signals or the overhead wires that went.” Both things have to be right, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds was right to emphasise that.
	Understandably, we are promoting the case for expenditure for the benefit of our constituents, but what is important is that improvements benefit the whole line—whether we are talking about the short journey to Shenfield, the fast journey to Chelmsford, or the journeys to Ipswich, Norwich, Stansted airport or Cambridge. Even the intervening stations need a better service. What struck me quite recently was that the sector of London through which our lines pass has been the most neglected part of the city, so it too would benefit from investment in this line and the whole new service approach.
	I hope that the demonstrable unity we have shown tonight—there is no difference in view on party lines or on whether we represent inner London, mid-London, outer London or the coast—proves that we speak with a united voice, which I hope is heard very clearly in the Department.

Simon Burns: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) on securing this debate. The fact that so many Members are present in the Chamber shows just how important the debate is. I am particularly pleased to see on the Front Bench—it is not often that we see so many Ministers in an Adjournment debate—my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) because they, with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), were on the taskforce that was created by the Chancellor and that has done so much work to identify and then promote what we need on our railway.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) said, we are of course fighting for a better service for our constituents, but it is not solely a better service for them. East Anglia is an economic engine, and that engine needs to be sustained by improving communications. I am talking about the communications of commuters who commute on the line—whether it is into London to work in the City or into other parts of East Anglia. The benefits will also be felt by the freight service, which all too often has to come down on the main commuter line from Felixstowe to London to then go back up north. We need far greater improvements on the line from Felixstowe to Nuneaton to open up capacity on the lines down to London and up to Norwich.
	Tomorrow is, of course, crucial because of the franchise and its implications for the future of our railways. The Minister will probably get bored stupid hearing this—

Claire Perry: Never!

Simon Burns: The Minister is very kind, and she can add to saying “never” by doing what we want. What we want and what we have to have is new rolling stock. Our rolling stock is archaic. It breaks down too frequently. Most of the eastern line from Liverpool Street, Chelmsford, Colchester and Ipswich to Norwich has two tracks—one up, one down—and if a train breaks down, particularly during the morning or early evening rush hours, there is utter chaos, with all the suffering that that entails. We must ensure, within the confines of the franchise wording, that whoever is successful in that bid and gets the franchise from October next year is under no misunderstanding—no ifs, no buts—about the fact that we will have new rolling stock that is fit for purpose for our railway needs.

Bernard Jenkin: I join in the general congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) on obtaining this debate, but will my right hon. Friend concur with two things? First, the service has become intolerable. Our commuters have had enough, and we should not be asking them to put up with a service continuing at this level. Secondly, I am afraid that the capacity of the network is not up to standard. We will have more housing in Essex, and unless we have improvements in capacity, we will go on having a vulnerable and unsatisfactory network.

Simon Burns: My hon. Friend raises two important issues, which I will deal with briefly because other hon. Friends want to take part in the debate. First, capacity is a problem because the railway has two lines. We can take measures to help to improve it, one of which will be the loop to the north of Witham that will allow fast trains to overtake slower ones, which will increase the number of trains that can run on the line, particularly in the rush hour. Secondly, we need to identify other areas that can have loops. Sadly, because of the nature of the railway, we cannot put in more lines. For example, two more lines could not be put through my constituency, Chelmsford, to increase capacity, simply because the railway is enveloped by housing and businesses, and doing so is not physically possible. I certainly would not advocate knocking down houses for that railway expansion. With that constraint, we must look at other imaginative ways in which to increase capacity. We also need to ensure that all trains have 12 carriages during the rush hour and that we do not have some with eight carriages, as we certainly do at the moment.
	Finally, the Minister can have as good a franchise as she wants and she can find as excellent a rail service provider as she can get, but that will not release the full potential that can be developed if Network Rail gets its act together and stops engineering works overrunning into Mondays and ensures that, when there are signal failures, track problems or overhead electricity cable failures, the work is done swiftly and efficiently to minimise disruption to the service. I know from previous conversations that the Minister is acutely aware of the dissatisfaction not only of right hon. and hon. Members, but of our constituents who use the service and pay for it day in day out, year in year out. I know that she, too, is determined to find a service provider who recognises their responsibilities to improve reliability and the quality of the service and to ensure that we have new rolling stock. I also know that she and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport are working to ensure that Network Rail gets its act together, so that we do not have unnecessary problems that cause disruption to our constituents.

Chloe Smith: I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) for calling for this debate. As is eminently clear, we are a united team here tonight arguing for our rail network in East Anglia at a very important moment.
	When I was traveling back to my constituency a couple of weeks ago, the train was, rarely, a moment ahead of schedule and the announcer said over the tannoy, “ Ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to say you have arrived in Norwich…”. He meant to say, “You have arrived in Norwich a minute early,” which is a record-breaking feat. The surprise that nobody in the carriage felt was that we had arrived. It can take all too long sitting on those trains to East Anglia and not being entirely sure of arriving at all. That hapless announcer had managed to make one of the best jokes in the book—that people do arrive when they are trying to go to East Anglia.
	I wish to thank the team of colleagues and the many businesses out in our constituencies who contributed to the report of the Great Eastern main line taskforce. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns). I pay tribute, too, to the work of the New Anglia local enterprise partnership, the Essex chamber of commerce and others throughout our three counties who have contributed extensively to this work, and I thank the passengers who have supported it, because it is for them that we do this work. It is for them that we make sure we have a bright future for our economy. It is for them, travelling every day on a poor service, that we want to make these differences.
	When we launched the report, we had more than 111,000 passengers represented by the organisations behind the campaign. That is a force to be reckoned with and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister sees that as she looks at East Anglia. She knows the prize that we are aiming for—the opportunity to create jobs in Norwich, Ipswich, Chelmsford, Colchester, and up and down the line, including the smaller towns which are often forgotten but which are crucial. I am talking about figures of the order of 8,200 new jobs in my city, Norwich, just under 10,000 new jobs in Ipswich, and some 30,000 new jobs throughout Essex. That is what we stand to gain through this campaign, and that is why it is so crucial.
	The Minister is well aware of the strength of the East Anglian economy. It is a regional economy. It is, in the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, the “California of Europe”, or so it would be if it was served by better transport links, and that is the key point of our campaign. Let us not forget that it is also a major destination for many thousands of tourists who want to come there every year, but who get stuck. It is not good enough for people to be unable to get to the destination of our wonderful counties.
	Let me give an example from the business world. One of our colleagues on the campaign team was escorting an investor from quite far around the globe to East Anglia to talk about a new business venture, the kind of thing that builds the jobs that we have spoken about. That investor stood on the platform at Liverpool Street contemplating the candy cane of the cancellations board and said, “But I can’t invest in this. This is no good. Is it normally like this?”, and our colleague had to say yes. That is what sets our region back. We want an end to such disappointment.
	It has not been good enough to have some of the oldest rolling stock in the country. It has not been good enough to have delays. It has not been good enough to have unreliability. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) will talk about some of the day-to-day economic impacts that that can have. At a time of year when people want security in their working lives and security for their families, it is not good enough.
	We have been looking this week at an astronaut going into space and we are all extremely excited to see Major Tim Peake’s progress. When I heard the numbers involved, I could not help but think of a comparison. When I understood that he was going to travel 250 miles from the orbit of earth to the international space station, I thought to myself, “Well, that’s only double the distance between London and Norwich.” Then I heard that he was going to take six hours to cover the distance from the orbit trail to the ISS, and I thought, “That’s about a good day on one of the weekend services to our county,” and I thought, “We could do better than that.” Let us see rocket boosters on our rail franchise—that is what we need. We have the opportunity to do this. We have made significant progress so far. We are on the cusp of a franchise that will give us new trains, and on the cusp of proper investment through Network Rail that will enable us to have the investment in the track that we need.
	My call to action is this: we need passengers to continue to have faith in this campaign.
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Guy Opperman.)

Chloe Smith: Passengers have been patient and persevered with us through long years in getting this far. Let us make this a reality for them in the next 10 years. In the words of one passenger who supported our campaign:
	“I am utterly supportive of this campaign to improve…the rail journey…It’s a challenge on no small scale but worth every effort over the years to come.”

James Cartlidge: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) on calling for this debate at such a timely moment. I associate myself with the comments of all my right hon. and hon. Friends about the importance of this franchise to the future of our regional economy.
	I want to focus on one specific and increasingly infamous incident on our railway line in East Anglia in recent weeks. In fact, it is so infamous it has now earned its own title—leafgate. It was the recent closure of two branch lines in Suffolk for 13 days as a result of leaves on the line. The key thing is that they were closed not because of leaves on those lines but because of leaves on other lines in Suffolk, meaning that there were not enough diesel engines to go around. The lines from Sudbury to Marks Tey and from Felixstowe to Ipswich were closed because they were the easiest to close. Try telling that to passengers spending thousands of pounds a year on their season tickets!
	We were given very good excuses by Abellio Greater Anglia for this debacle, and I am sure that it had very good reasons. It said that there was unprecedented leaf fall creating unprecedentedly strong leaf mulch, which meant that our relatively old diesel trains could not cope and were taken out of service. The whole problem came down to the fact that when they had to go to the depots, the only places with a wheel lathe that could fix them were in Derby and Ilford, not in East Anglia.
	This has been a very disappointing and depressing episode, particularly for my constituents in Sudbury. Sudbury is the largest town in my constituency and it has the only railway station in my constituency. While I accept the importance of the main line—my constituents use Colchester, Manningtree and Ipswich in large numbers—Sudbury has our only station. Sudbury is a very proud town. We have had a difficult year. We had a massive fire this summer, the biggest for decades, which destroyed some of the most ancient buildings in the heart of our town. The residents are a pretty stoic bunch, but when they were told that they would have no rail service for two weeks because of leaves on a different line, it was pretty humiliating for them. I have to say that it was pretty humiliating for me to have to deal with ever-angrier constituents.
	We recognised that the one positive was the rare window of leverage because of what is happening tomorrow with the franchise. That gave us a rare opportunity to get stuck in. I wrote a letter to the Minister, who has been helpful as she can be in what is clearly one of the hardest jobs in the Government. The letter was signed by all hon. Members with stations on the two branch lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) has Chappel and Wakes Colne. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) has Bures, which is the station that I use.
	In the letter, we asked for two things in particular: whether the franchise could be amended or a letter sent to the bidders to ask them to ensure that when they bid they have a robust contingency to ensure that we do not have another leafgate next year. After all, I remind my hon. Friend the Minister, that this franchise goes live in October, when leaves do have a habit of falling off the trees—it is not unprecedented. We have been promised root and branch reform on our branch line—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”]—and we look forward to it. [Interruption.] That was a terrible line; my right hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise is absolutely right—very poor service.
	I was delighted to receive a written answer yesterday from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State saying that Network Rail and Abellio Greater Anglia
	“have secured the services of John Curley, a respected railway industry professional, to hold an independent review of the factors and circumstances that conspired to affect services so badly. We expect this review to identify the root cause of failures and highlight lessons that need to be learned for the future. We expect corrective action to be taken wherever practicable to avoid recurrence in the future.
	I can confirm that the results of the review will be made available to the winning bidder of the current East Anglia franchise competition.”
	I welcome that. Will Mr Curley be able to meet local Members of Parliament and visit our constituencies? Although there is not much cash, I am happy to walk the line with him, if need be.
	The key point is that branch lines are often overlooked. The main line service is important and I support all the measures for which my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and for Norwich North
	(Chloe Smith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) have been pressing. But we must not forget our branch lines. Many thousands of passengers rely on them.
	The town of Sudbury is proud of our railway line, which avoided the Beeching axe—it just about got through. We still just about have a train, but for two weeks we had to have a bus. We do not want a bus; we want a train and a decent rail service. That is what we expect in Suffolk and across East Anglia, and this is the key moment. We expect great things from the franchise, so we hope that tomorrow we will turn a new page—a new leaf.

Will Quince: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), not only on securing this powerful and timely debate, but on giving us a platform on which to make some very important points. [Interruption.] That was not intended to be a pun, I hasten to add.
	Not only is the town I represent the oldest recorded town in the country, it is also the fastest growing. Tens of thousands of homes have been built there and we are a massive tourist destination. We are also a commuter town and we have a large university. We have huge numbers of small and medium-sized enterprises and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) has said, Essex is an economic powerhouse. Therefore, tens of thousands of commuters in our county are being let down. The service does not represent value for money. The minimum cost of an annual ticket from Colchester to London is £4,800, so people expect to be able to get into work and to get home in time to see their families.
	A number of points have already been raised eloquently by other right hon. and hon. Members. I will not dwell on all of them, but I want to touch on a few. On Abellio and communications, it is totally unacceptable to leave people sitting on a stationary train for 20 or 30 minutes without making an announcement and for them to then find out via Twitter why the train has not moved. One thing that has to get better as part of any new franchise—it will not cost a penny—is communication with customers. That has to happen.
	A number of Members have already pointed out that some of our trains are more than 40 years old. We have trains that dispose human excrement on to the tracks, not just on the line at various points, but even at stations. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) has said that he is happy to walk the line, but I am absolutely not happy to do so, because it is a public health risk.
	I write to Network Rail regularly—I think I am becoming a bit of a pest—and it keeps telling me that it is investing £170 million this year. I pass that information on to my commuters and rail users, who keep telling me—I am very sympathetic to this view—“Well, show us the evidence, because it isn’t there at the moment.” There are consistent delays, signal failures and track problems—they face delay after delay after delay.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds made this point eloquently: our commuters are really informed. As our Twitter feeds will demonstrate, it is very hard to keep up with non-train-related tweets, because of the sheer volume of train-related tweets. We cannot keep saying, “Jam tomorrow.” We cannot get around the fact that they are well aware that £1.4 billion has gone back into the Department for Transport over the past 10 years. They know that this line has not had the investment it has deserved over decades.
	On the new franchise, I do not think that the requirements or requests are unreasonable. They include new trains, wi-fi, power sockets and toilets that do not flush human excrement on to the lines. I do not think that that is much to ask. It is reasonable for commuters to expect to be able to get a seat and to have a power supply and wi-fi so that they can work, and if their trains are on time not all of the time but most of the time, that would be an improvement. They deserve that.
	I want to pay tribute and give credit to my right hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford and for Witham (Priti Patel), and my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). They have played a huge role on the Great Eastern main line taskforce. The evidence of that is clear to see in its fantastic report.
	I sit on the Transport Committee, which has recently agreed to launch an inquiry into our line. Both Network Rail and Abellio keep saying, “Jam tomorrow”, but we still have to wait until next October and, quite frankly, commuters have had enough. I do not blame them, because I use the train line as well. We talk about jobs that may be created through the new franchise, but what worries me most is the very serious issue of the jobs being lost now.
	When I made that point in the Transport Committee, I based it on the anecdotal evidence I have received of jobs being put under threat. That is happening through choice, with people saying, “I can’t cope with this anymore, given the constant delays and not getting home to my family”. However, there is also the pressure being applied by employers because people are not getting into work on time. After the Transport Committee had agreed to the inquiry, I started to receive actual evidence. One individual’s contract has been terminated, and they were told, “It is not to do with your performance, which we think has been excellent, but because your rail line”—specific reference was made to the operator—“means you have not been able to get into work on time.” That is totally unacceptable, and it is why the inquiry is very important. I also very much welcome the independent review, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk mentioned.
	The performance of Abellio and Network Rail recently has been shambolic, verging on incompetent. I do not use those words lightly. Commuters and rail users from Colchester and across East Anglia deserve so much better. We must ensure, as part of the new franchise, that services get better. I want to say to the Minister that the one thing our commuters and rail users want for Christmas is a franchise that gets them to work and gets them back on time to see their families, and I hope that we can make that happen.

Claire Perry: Before I respond to an incredibly powerful set of speeches, may I crave your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, to put on the record my thanks to the staff of this place, who have done so much for us over the year? In my view, they never get thanked enough and I am truly grateful to them.
	We have a star-studded Chamber for this Adjournment debate. Such debates are usually very ill-attended. I think there are more Members here than we had for the previous debate. It is quite terrifying to face this star-studded pack tonight. They represent—if I have not left anyone out—the fine counties of Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex and Cambridgeshire. They have very passionately and powerfully made the case for improvements in our railways.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). Like many new Members in the Chamber she has been an assiduous correspondent and lobbyist for improvements in her railways. She has focused specifically on the requirements of her constituents and on what the improvements will bring to the broader area.
	I want to try to set out—I am pleased that I have the time to do so—what we are attempting to achieve with the franchising process. There is a tension between specifying everything, crowding out any form of innovation in the market and not being able to cope with franchise change and setting out more broadly what we expect bidders to deliver, while letting them come up with the right solutions.
	My hon. Friend, like others, very powerfully made her point about the need for new rolling stock. Indeed, she referred to what is currently running as “decrepit and aged”. We have discussed this matter, so she will know that we absolutely expect the rolling stock on the whole franchise to be transformed, because we completely agree with the assertions made about its unsuitability for purpose. But we want the market to go away and find the best solutions for customers, based on what different customers along the routes may need. There is a combination of inter-city, metro and suburban services, and we want the bidders to be creative in what they come up with. I can, however, tell my hon. Friends that the score that we will give to rolling stock in this franchise process is the highest ever. We are no longer in the business, as previous Governments were, of letting franchises purely on the economics. That did a huge disservice to the customers who use the routes. Now, the process asks what the economics look like and, crucially, what the quality looks like for the passengers. Rolling stock provision will have the highest score ever in this franchise.
	We will also have very clear customer performance targets in the franchise. I was shocked to find out that we used to let operators set their own. How can we possibly run a contract with an operator if we do not know what we are contracting for? I of course want to contract for measures such as punctuality and reliability, but crucially I want to contract for customers, because these are not empty boxes rolling around the network; they are boxes full of people, often over-full of people, trying to get to their jobs or home to their lives. I reassure right hon. and hon. Members that we are expecting a transformation in the quality of the rolling stock.
	Turning briefly to stations, I know that my hon. Friend’s station is a grand old building that features all of 20 car parking spaces. We should expect to see real improvements at that station and at many stations across the network. We have asked bidders to make those improvements. We have asked them to work against a 40-year asset management strategy. We are trying to extend the management of the assets beyond the franchise period to ensure that investment proposals can be properly made for the stations in the franchise. We will look at those proposals in the bids and hold bidders to account against them.
	Turning briefly to routes and services, I was delighted that we were able to confirm the absolute requirement for Norwich in 90 and Ipswich in 60. I pay tribute to the group that has been led so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith); my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), who have to remain silent as they are on the Front Bench; and my dear friend the former rail Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns). That group has become the poster child for how to do it.
	I am the most popular Minister and, in a way, the most unpopular Minister, because I am deluged in the Lobbies and at other times by people who want to talk about railways. What I say to them is, “Go and look at what was done in this study,” because, for the first time, it tried to capture that elusive thing that we all know is there: it asked, if we invest a bit of money in transport, what is the broader economic value that it delivers?
	You will be amazed to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, or perhaps you will not, that every major infrastructure project in this country—the extension of the Jubilee line, HS1, the M25—has failed the economic value test that the Government have imposed on it, because such projects are looked at through a very narrow prism that does not factor in the economic value added that good transport investment brings. This group broke that mould and created a model—we are working hard to see how to capture this—that showed what we all instinctively know to be true: that if we invest in transport infrastructure, we grow the local, regional and national economy. That is an incredibly important point.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds asks why no half-hourly service is specified between Ipswich and Cambridge, via Bury St Edmunds.

Matthew Hancock: And Newmarket.

Claire Perry: I do understand the need for special services on race days, my right hon. Friend will be pleased to hear.
	Such a service has been looked at carefully and I looked at it again today. Two things would need to happen to make it work. The first is a series of infrastructure investments, including in the Ely North junction, which several Members have referenced. The disappointing news on that is that the original project cost of about £30 million to £40 million has escalated to more than £130 million in the current analysis. Given that we are in the business of delivering infrastructure against the very tight Hendy review, with a known amount of funding, that is simply not acceptable. The team has been sent away to look at how that work could be delivered more cost-effectively.
	Other works such as doubling track, putting in passing loops or improving signalling capability would also need to happen to deliver a robust service. I believe that work will be done on that as part of the analysis going into the next control period, which starts in four years’ time.
	Alternatively, a service could be provided that skips stops. One challenge on our network is that we always want stops from everywhere to anywhere, but it is also possible to provide fast and semi-fast services with slightly different stopping patterns. The beauty of having a unified group of people who work intelligently together, is that they can work out what such a measure might look like for the benefit of the region. I do not suggest that there should be a bidding process for whose station will be missed out, but we could consider whether there is a way to serve better an enormous housing development or a new town by using existing infrastructure.
	It has become clear that we are good in this country at specifying enormous investments in infrastructure without necessarily thinking more creatively about how we could deliver that solution through better rolling stock or minor track improvements. For example, we might not necessarily need dual tracking, but perhaps there could be some passing places, and I encourage people to work on that.

Chloe Smith: I am grateful to have another moment to speak in this debate. The Minister has asked for a couple of fast services that will achieve Norwich in 90 and Ipswich in 60. Will she confirm that in a way those are bonuses, because the true version of Norwich in 90 and Ipswich in 60, and the better services that we all look for, will come when we have new trains and improved infrastructure? Those extras are just that—extras—until we can achieve the long-term goal.

Claire Perry: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and controlling the franchise levers is the first step in the process. We expect bidders to exceed what we have asked for in the franchise, because we are saying “This is the minimum that we expect”. We will, of course, award the franchise to the bidder that is able to exceed those minimums, including with possible additional services. When the bids come in tomorrow I have no idea what they will contain, but we are confidently expecting those specifications to be exceeded.
	As I have said, I am confident that the winning bidder for this franchise will deliver huge, tangible, transformational improvements that are commensurate with the economic weight of the region. We will see route improvements, and we have set out what we expect as a minimum. However, this is not set in stone; this is a starting point. When the franchise starts up next October, there will be every opportunity to change routes, add additional service patterns or new stations—that has happened across the country—improve timetables, and deliver better scheduled services, or even special services such as to Newmarket on race days.
	I urge Members to continue to work together, pulling in the excellent provision of help and information from the local enterprise partnership and local businesses, and to help us make the business case for the improvements to infrastructure that the Government will make. We must also work with the operators to encourage them to change their patterns.
	We have heard from several hon. Members tonight, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), who is an assiduous campaigner on this issue, re-emphasised the absolute importance of new rolling stock in this franchise. Crucially, he also mentioned the linkage of rail services to airports. I am lucky not to have airports in my portfolio, or indeed HS2, but the linkage of rail services to airports is vital. He will be pleased to know that already an early morning service has been introduced from Liverpool Street to Stansted, because it turned out that more than 500 people a night were sleeping at the airport because they could not get there early enough. That has now changed, and a new service is running.

Peter Aldous: The Minister is setting out her case well. As well as linkage to airports, in such a rural area we also need linkage to public transport and buses.

Claire Perry: My hon. Friend makes a good point about integrating the transport system so that it works for people who might take a bus or drive a car, and who need a car parking space before they get on the train. We must assume that transport plays that role.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) made a wonderful speech and referenced the importance of freight, which is a particular boon and issue on these lines. I am very sympathetic to the issue of freight disrupting passenger traffic. We need more freight paths. Freight is strategically important to productivity and air quality. The more freight we can get off the road and on to trains the better. My Department will be undertaking a strategic freight review. I am very pleased that in the spending review we preserved the majority of funding for freight.

Douglas Carswell: Regardless of who is awarded the franchise, does the Minister agree that unless we address the fundamental issue of corporate governance and accountability, and the underlying problem, which is Network Rail and its mediocre service, we will not see the transformative change she wants? A year ago almost to the day, we had a debate in Westminster Hall about this. I would be interested to hear if she has given the issue any further thought.

Claire Perry: We have made huge progress on Network Rail’s governance. It is now an arm’s length public sector body. I think Sir Peter Hendy, the current chair, will transform the organisation.

Jo Churchill: I urge the Minister to have a conversation with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones). Moving freight on to the railway has such an impact. We were talking only earlier this week about freight travelling down the A14. Freight trains can take up to 35 containers. If we could get that freight, at a whoosh, off the A14, it would have a really big impact on the roads.

Claire Perry: My hon. Friend is right. [Interruption.] Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) says, “Off the A12 too”. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that one fully loaded freight train can take up to 72 HGVs off the road. That is astonishing. That is why we make money available through the modal shift grant and for the strategic freight network.
	I really cannot pay tribute enough to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). She has been a live wire of co-ordination and energy as the person to whom others must come and talk. I do not feel I am in a position to deliver rocket-powered trains just yet, but I would certainly like to try. Maybe there will be a train called Major Tim very soon, which would satisfy her.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) raised the very worrying issue of leafgate. There is an important point here. I would be happy to confirm I will ask Mr Curley to meet representatives of his constituents and others. The question for me is this: what is the productivity loss to the British economy from accepting the fact that every year for a few weeks we are all late for work by 10, 15 or 20 minutes? I want to start looking at investments in our rail network through the prism of passengers and of productivity, because the two things are linked. We are making people late consistently, year after year after year, because of leaves on the line. Other places do not shut the lines, he will be pleased to hear, but they do slow down trains and run them slowly. People are cautious. I used to refute leaf stickiness as nonsense, but it is a problem. And it is not just us who face this: the Netherlands have a problem and Germany have a problem. Let us have a pan-European get-rid-of-leaves-on-the-line prize. The productivity improvement it could deliver for the British economy would be huge. I am determined that the productivity improvements rail can deliver are factored into the investment decision.

Lucy Frazer: Before the Minister sits down, it is concerning that the cost of improvements to the Ely North junction have gone up. If the improvements come in early in control period 6—we very much hope they will—it might still be possible to have finished in the franchise period, which we all want, so we ask her not to rule that out.

Claire Perry: I rule nothing out on that point. I am very keen that what is funded and delivered will be delivered by Network Rail in this period.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who has already, in the first few months of this Parliament, been such an incredible campaigner for his constituency. He raises the very important point that we are not in the business of peddling jam tomorrow. That is why we have to deliver what is in the Hendy review, and that is why we have to make this franchise absolutely deliver for all passengers.
	I want to make a couple of final points. First, we are in an unprecedented place for rail. We are investing more in our rail network than at any time since Victorian times. We will spend £38 billion on our railways over this period, and I am bound and determined that that money is spent for passengers who can see and feel the benefit. I urge this group, who are working so well together, to bring their collective intelligence and the network effect that one of my hon. Friends talked about to help us make the business case for these improvements. The benefits are much, much broader than the narrow rail prism that we often use.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.

Deferred Division

Petroleum

That the draft Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing (Protected Areas) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 16 July, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 298, Noes 261.

Question accordingly agreed to.